TAP Evaluation and Compensation Guide of the TAP Evaluation and Compensation Guide ... leadership...

TAP Evaluation and Compensation Guide

www.tapsystem.org

National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. Do not duplicate without permission. 1

Under TAP, teacher performance is measured by:

1. The skills, knowledge, and responsibilities a teacher exhibits as evaluated

during classroom observations;

2. The value-added gains the teacher produces in his or her classroom’s

achievement; and

3. The value-added gains the school produces in student achievement.

Both teaching processes (instructional skills, knowledge, and responsibilities) and

teaching outcomes (student achievement gains) play a role in determining teacher

performance and pay. This guide helps schools measure master, mentor, and career

teacher performance, and then pay teachers according to their skills, knowledge,

responsibilities, and student achievement gains. In addition to the information

contained within this guide, the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET)

provides detailed trainings and workshops designed for schools or districts

implementing TAP™: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement.

We encourage you to use this TEC Guide as you pursue your goals of

Teacher Excellence Student Achievement Opportunities for All

Role of the TAP Evaluation and Compensation Guide

The TAP Evaluation and Compensation (TEC) Guide provides schools with a framework

and instruments to implement TAP’s Instructionally Focused Accountability and

Performance-Based Compensation systems.


Table of Contents

Section 1: overview and Recommended Policies ...................................................5

TAP System Overview ......................................................................................................... 6

Recommended Policies and Procedures ............................................................................. 7

Instructionally Focused Accountability and Performance-Based Compensation

Summary Sheet ..................................................................................................................12

Section 2: tAP evaluation System ........................................................................ 15

Teaching Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities Performance Standards .......................16

Teaching Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities Performance

Standards Overview .................................................................................................17

Instruction................................................................................................................18

Designing and Planning Instruction ........................................................................ 22

The Learning Environment ...................................................................................... 23

Evaluator/Self-Evaluation Report ....................................................................................... 24

Teacher Responsibilities .................................................................................................... 25

Teacher Responsibilities Surveys ...................................................................................... 26

Value-Added Assessment .................................................................................................. 33

Classroom-Level Value-Added Assessment ....................................................................... 34

School-Wide Value-Added Assessment ............................................................................. 35

Section 3: tAP compensation System ..................................................................37

TAP Compensation Model ................................................................................................. 38

Teacher Compensation Formulas...................................................................................... 39

Principal Compensation Formulas ..................................................................................... 44

References ...............................................................................................................45

Appendix: Value-Added FAQs ..................................................................................47

5

1

sectio

nOverview and Recommended Policies

National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. Do not duplicate without permission.6

TAPTM: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement was launched by the Milken Family Foundation in 1999 and is now operated by the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET). The goal of TAP is improved teacher professional practice resulting in improved student achievement. TAP is a reform system designed to elevate the teaching profession through the implementation of four interrelated elements:

Multiple career Paths: TAP allows teachers to pursue a variety of positions throughout their careers — career, mentor, and master teacher — depending upon their interests, abilities, and accomplishments. As they move up the ranks, their qualifications, roles, and responsibilities increase — and so does their compensation. This career path allows teachers to advance without having to leave the classroom. Along with the principal, the master and mentor teachers form a leadership team to deliver school-based professional support and conduct evaluations with a high level of expertise.

ongoing Applied Professional Growth: TAP restructures the school schedule to provide time during the regular school day for TAP teachers to participate in weekly cluster group meetings. Led by master and mentor teachers, cluster group meetings allow teachers to examine student data together, engage in collaborative planning, and learn instructional strategies that have proven successful in their schools.

instructionally Focused Accountability: TAP teachers are observed in classroom instruction several times a year by multiple trained observers, including principals and master and mentor teachers, using research-based rubrics for several dimensions of instructional quality. Evaluators are trained and certified on these rubrics, and leadership teams monitor the reliability and consistency of evaluations in their schools.

Performance-Based compensation: Teachers in a TAP school have the opportunity to earn bonuses each year based on their performance in the classroom, their students’ achievement gains, and the entire school’s achievement growth. Master and mentor teachers also receive additional compensation based on their added roles and responsibilities.

This document outlines the specific policies for implementing:1. The teacher performance evaluation component as called for by the Ongoing Applied

Professional Growth and Instructionally Focused Accountability elements of TAP; and2. The salary augmentations and performance awards component as called for by the Multiple

Career Paths and Performance-Based Compensation elements of TAP.

For more information about the TAP system, visit www.tapsystem.org.

TAP System Overview


teacher Performance evaluation

Performance-Based Standards At each school site, it is recommended that this document be approved by a committee made up of certified staff members. The committee may suggest revisions; however, these suggestions need to be submitted in writing to the TAP Director or site administrator, and then must be approved by both the TAP Director or supervising agency as applicable. After reviewing this document, the school staff must approve the policies, measurement instruments, compensation model, and standards within.

Each teacher will earn a score based on his or her performance as compared to the standards that are set. Standards are set for the following criteria:1. Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities (SKR)2. Classroom achievement gains 3. School-wide achievement gains

The above criteria are measured using the following:1. Classroom observations 2. Classroom-level value-added assessment 3. School-wide value-added assessment

Qualified evaluators assess these standards for decision-making related to:1. Annual evaluation process according to law2. Qualification for career path movement3. Determination of performance awards

Qualified evaluators1. Principals, master teachers, mentor teachers, and district personnel are eligible to serve as

qualified evaluators.2. All designated evaluators must participate in required certification training and demonstrate

proficiency in the TAP evaluation process by successfully completing an annual certification test to be qualified.

evaluation teamThe TAP teacher evaluation system requires that each teacher be evaluated multiple times each year by multiple qualified evaluators. The evaluation team consists of an administrator (principal, assistant principal, or district personnel), a master teacher, and a mentor teacher. The teacher also serves as a self-evaluator to facilitate reflection on his or her own teaching.

evaluation cycle Frequency and Weighting 1. Each teacher will be observed 4-6 times during a school year. For each of these observations,

teachers are also required to complete a self-evaluation.

2. For career and mentor teachers, the following evaluator type frequency is required:» At least 1 time per year by a master teacher» At least 1 time per year by a mentor teacher» At least 1 time per year by an administrator (principal, assistant principal, or district personnel)» The school leadership team should determine the type of evaluator for the remaining observations.

Recommended Policies and Procedures


For master teachers, the following evaluator type frequency is required:» At least 1 time per year by an administrator (principal, assistant principal, or district personnel)» At least 1 time per year by another master teacher or a mentor teacher » The school leadership team should determine the type of evaluator for the remaining observations.

3. Evaluations are weighted differently based on who is conducting the evaluation. These weights are computed at the end of the year when final SKR scores are averaged. The chart below illustrates TAP’s recommend weightings by teacher type:

career and Mentor teachers Master teachers

evaluator type Weighting evaluator type Weighting

Mentor 20% Mentor or Master 35%

Master 35% Administrator 55%

Administrator 35% Self-Evaluation 10%

Self-Evaluation 10%

4. Additionally, teachers will receive a summative evaluation report each year. This report will include the averaged ratings for performance in the Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities criteria. The written report will be discussed with the individual being evaluated before the end of the school year. The classroom value-added achievement and school achievement data will be discussed when results are returned (timing contingent upon availability of state test results and value-added analyses). Performance awards will be distributed after value-added results and evaluation scores are calculated.

teacher Performance evaluation DomainsWhen a teacher is evaluated according to the Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities criteria, he or she will be given an averaged performance rating for each evaluation based on the indicators in each of the four domains:

1. Designing and Planning Instruction2. The Learning Environment3. Instruction4. Responsibilities

In each domain, performance will be rated on a five-point scale, averaged, and assigned a single score. Further, each domain will be assigned a weight on which performance awards are based:

Domain Weights career Mentor Master

Designing and Planning Instruction 15% 15% 15%

The Learning Environment 5% 5% 5%

Instruction 75% 60% 40%

Responsibilities 5% 20% 40%

At the end of the year, all evaluators’ data will be averaged with these weights to produce a final score for each teacher (SKR score).


Announced and Unannounced classroom observationsAt least half of the classroom observations should be unannounced. Prior to announced observations, the evaluator conducts a “pre-conference” meeting with the teacher to ask pertinent background questions about the lesson plan and the students in the class in order to provide context. After each classroom/lesson observation, the teacher being observed will receive written and/or oral feedback from the individual evaluator in a “post-conference” meeting. In the post-conference, the evaluator shares points of “reinforcement” to highlight the teacher’s strengths, as well as points of “refinement” where the teacher has growth areas. All observations (announced and unannounced) must include post-conference meetings.

Salary Augmentations and Performance Awards

Salary Augmentation Related to career PathAs part of TAP’s Multiple Career Paths, teacher compensation increases as qualifications, roles, and responsibilities increase. Therefore, if qualified and selected to fill an open position as a mentor or master teacher, the teacher will receive the salary addendum for which he or she qualifies. Salary augmentations are determined locally based on position and local compensation structure. In different TAP locations, addendums have ranged from a minimum of $2,500 for mentor teachers to a maximum of $15,000 for master teachers.

Performance Award FundAt a minimum, $2,000 per teacher should be allocated for the school’s performance award fund (Note: many schools base their award fund on $2,500-$3,000 per teacher, which is recommended by NIET). The award fund is divided into six pools:

1. Career teachers with student achievement data 2. Career teachers without student achievement data3. Mentor teachers with student achievement data4. Mentor teachers without student achievement data5. Master teachers with student achievement data6. Master teachers without student achievement data

Note: Teachers are considered “without” student achievement data if they teach subjects or grades without high stakes or district tests, or do not have enough students with previous test data to calculate a value-added growth score for their classroom.

The award pool for each group is apportioned based on the ratio of the number of teachers in each of the six pools to the total number of teachers eligible for an award.

To reiterate, the awards are based on three criteria:1. Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities (SKR score)2. Classroom achievement gains (value-added)3. School achievement gains (value-added)

Each criterion must be assigned a weight that determines what percentage of the award pool is designated for that criterion. TAP recommends 50% for Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities, 30% for classroom achievement, and 20% for school achievement.

In the event that the classroom achievement portion is not applicable due to lack of data, that teacher’s 30% for classroom achievement gains will be shifted to school achievement gains. In other words, TAP recommends that teachers without student achievement scores are weighted 50% for Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities and 50% for school achievement gains.

All performance awards in TAP are considered a one-time award and must be earned yearly.


Performance Award Requirements Below are the minimum requirements on the Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities to be eligible to earn the portion of the award pool set aside for that criterion:

1. Master teachers must earn a SKR score of no less than “4” 2. Mentor teachers must earn a SKR score of no less than “3.5”3. Career teachers must earn a SKR score of no less than “2.5”

Additionally, there are minimum requirements for both classroom and school-wide achievement scores to be eligible to earn the portions of the award pool set aside for each of those criteria:

1. All teacher types must earn a value-added score of no less than “3” on their individual classroom achievement (a score of “3” means that the teacher’s students made one year’s expected growth on the state or comparable district assessment).

2. The school-wide achievement score must be a value-added score of no less than “3” (a score of “3” means that the school made one year’s expected growth on the state or comparable district assessment).

For example, if a career teacher received an SKR score of “3,” a classroom value-added score of “2,” and a school-wide value-added score of “2,” they would only be eligible for the SKR portion of the award pool.

tAP Definition of inadequate Performance

A teacher’s performance is evaluated as inadequate when he or she receives an average score of below “2” on a five-point scale for either the Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities standards or the classroom achievement gains criteria. If a teacher earns an average score of below “2” in either of these evaluation criteria, he or she will take part in the school district’s improvement plan.

Appeal Process

example Site-Based Appeal ProcessIn the event a TAP teacher disagrees with the evaluation scores for individual performance on the Skills and Knowledge standards, he or she may appeal if there is a discrepancy of three or more points between any of the evaluator’s scores for any of the nineteen indictors from the Instruction, Designing and Planning Instruction, or The Learning Environment rubrics.

The site-based appeal process will follow the outlined procedures:1. Completion of an Appeal Request letter stating the specific nature of the discrepancy,

full disclosure of evidence of performance, and a statement of expected performance evaluation.

2. The evaluation team will meet with the teacher to review and provide information related to performance to achieve a mutual agreement.

3. In the event of non-agreement, a master teacher from the same school will reassess evaluation materials regarding the teacher’s performance by reviewing existing evidence.

4. After reviewing the information, the principal makes the final determination in writing regarding the TAP teacher’s score.


District-Level Appeal ProcessIf a TAP teacher disagrees with the assessed score after following the site-based appeal, the teacher may appeal at the district level utilizing the established district appeal process.

The following conditions must be met:1. The District Appeal Committee, in addition to the members established by statute, must

include at least one master teacher from the TAP school.2. A review of the TAP teacher contract will be presented.3. A review of the TAP teacher evaluation documentation will be presented.4. Decisions from the District Appeal Committee will be final.


1ca

reer

Men

tor

Mas

ter

2$0

$2,5

00 to

$4,5

00 (de

term

ined

by

dist

rict

)$6

,000

to

$15,

000

(det

erm

ined

by

dist

rict

)

3Sk

ills,

Kno

wle

dge,

& R

espo

nsib

ilitie

s –

50%

Skill

s, K

now

ledg

e, &

Res

pons

ibili

ties

– 50

%Sk

ills,

Kno

wle

dge,

& R

espo

nsib

ilitie

s –

50%

421

Sta

ndar

ds (M

inim

um A

vera

ged

Scor

e 2.

5)26

Sta

ndar

ds (M

inim

um A

vera

ged

Scor

e 3.

5)26

Sta

ndar

ds (M

inim

um A

vera

ged

Scor

e 4)

5Des

igni

ng a

nd P

lann

ing

Inst

ruct

ion

– 15

%Des

igni

ng a

nd P

lann

ing

Inst

ruct

ion

– 15

%Des

igni

ng a

nd P

lann

ing

Inst

ruct

ion

– 15

%

6In

stru

ctio

n –

75%

Inst

ruct

ion

– 60

%In

stru

ctio

n –

40%

7Th

e Le

arni

ng E

nviro

nmen

t –

5%Th

e Le

arni

ng E

nviro

nmen

t –

5%Th

e Le

arni

ng E

nviro

nmen

t –

5%

8Re

spon

sibi

litie

s –

5%Re

spon

sibi

litie

s –

20%

Resp

onsi

bilit

ies

– 40

%

9 Gro

win

g an

d Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

ly

Staf

f Dev

elop

men

t

Staf

f Dev

elop

men

t

10 Re

flect

ing

on T

each

ing

In

stru

ctio

nal Su

perv

isio

n

Inst

ruct

iona

l Su

perv

isio

n

11

Men

toring

M

ento

ring

12

Com

mun

ity

Invo

lvem

ent

Co

mm

unity

Invo

lvem

ent

13

Scho

ol R

espo

nsib

ilities

Sc

hool

Res

pons

ibili

ties

14

Gro

win

g an

d Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

ly

Gro

win

g an

d Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

ly

15

Refle

ctin

g on

Tea

chin

g

Refle

ctin

g on

Tea

chin

g

16ev

alua

tors

eval

uato

rsev

alua

tors

17M

ento

r Te

ache

r Re

view

– 2

0%

Men

tor Te

ache

r Re

view

– 2

0%

18M

aste

r Te

ache

r Re

view

– 3

5%M

aste

r Te

ache

r Re

view

– 3

5%M

aste

r (o

r M

ento

r) T

each

er R

evie

w –

35%

19Ad

min

istrat

or R

evie

w –

35%

Adm

inis

trat

or R

evie

w –

35%

Adm

inis

trat

or R

evie

w –

55%

20Se

lf Ev

alua

tion

– 1

0%Se

lf Ev

alua

tion

– 1

0%Se

lf Ev

alua

tion

– 1

0%

21M

easu

rem

ent in

stru

men

tsM

easu

rem

ent in

stru

men

tsM

easu

rem

ent in

stru

men

ts

22Obs

erva

tion

Obs

erva

tion

Obs

erva

tion

23Re

spon

sibi

litie

s Su

rvey

Resp

onsi

bilit

ies

Surv

eyRe

spon

sibi

litie

s Su

rvey

24cl

assr

oom

Ach

ieve

men

t At

trib

uted

to

teac

her

– 30

%*

clas

sroo

m A

chie

vem

ent At

trib

uted

to

teac

her

– 30

%*

clas

sroo

m A

chie

vem

ent At

trib

uted

to

teac

her

– 30

%**

25Le

vel 5

– 2

stan

dard

error

s ab

ove

aver

age

teac

her ga

in in

the

stat

e or

rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ple

26Le

vel 4

– 1

stan

dard

error

abo

ve a

vera

ge tea

cher

gai

n in

the

sta

te o

r re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

27Le

vel 3

– Nei

ther

1 s

tand

ard

erro

r ab

ove

nor be

low

the

ave

rage

tea

cher

gai

n in

the

sta

te o

r re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

28Le

vel 2

– 1

stan

dard

error

bel

ow a

vera

ge tea

cher

gai

n in

the

sta

te o

r re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

29Le

vel 1

– 2

stan

dard

error

s be

low

ave

rage

tea

cher

gai

n in

the

sta

te o

r re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

30Sc

hool

-Wid

e Ac

hiev

emen

t: A

war

d is

equ

ally

Dis

trib

uted

to

All St

aff –

20%

31Le

vel 5

– 2

stan

dard

error

s ab

ove

aver

age

scho

ol g

ain

in the

sta

te o

r re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

32Le

vel 4

– 1

stan

dard

error

abo

ve a

vera

ge s

choo

l ga

in in

the

stat

e or

rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ple

33Le

vel 3

– Nei

ther

1 s

tand

ard

erro

r ab

ove

nor be

low

the

ave

rage

sch

ool ga

in in

the

stat

e or

rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ple

34Le

vel 2

– 1

stan

dard

error

bel

ow a

vera

ge s

choo

l ga

in in

the

stat

e or

rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ple

35Le

vel 1

– 2

stan

dard

error

s be

low

ave

rage

sch

ool ga

in in

the

stat

e of

rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ple

Inst

ruct

iona

lly Fo

cuse

d Ac

coun

tabi

lity a

nd P

erfo

rman

ce-B

ased

Com

pens

atio

n Su

mm

ary S

heet

* Car

eer,

men

tor,

and

mas

ter t

each

ers w

ithout c

lass

room

achi

evem

ent d

ata (

e.g.

, gra

des K

-3 an

d sp

ecia

list t

each

ers)

are e

valu

ated

bas

ed o

n Sk

ills,

Know

ledg

e, an

d Re

spon

sibili

ties (

50%

) and

Sch

ool-W

ide A

chie

vem

ent (

50%

).**

Bec

ause

in so

me c

ases

mas

ter t

each

ers d

o no

t car

ry a

teac

hing

regi

ster

, the

y do

not r

ecei

ve a

clas

sroo

m-le

vel a

chie

vem

ent s

core

. The p

erce

ntag

e is s

hifte

d to

the s

choo

l-wid

e awa

rd, t

hus 5

0% is

bas

ed o

n Sk

ills,

Know

ledg

e, an

d Re

spon

sibili

ties a

nd 5

0% o

n Sc

hool

-Wid

e Ach

ieve

men

t.


1ca

reer

Men

tor

Mas

ter

2$0

$2,5

00 to

$4,5

00 (de

term

ined

by

dist

rict

)$6

,000

to

$15,

000

(det

erm

ined

by

dist

rict

)

3Sk

ills,

Kno

wle

dge,

& R

espo

nsib

ilitie

s –

50%

Skill

s, K

now

ledg

e, &

Res

pons

ibili

ties

– 50

%Sk

ills,

Kno

wle

dge,

& R

espo

nsib

ilitie

s –

50%

421

Sta

ndar

ds (M

inim

um A

vera

ged

Scor

e 2.

5)26

Sta

ndar

ds (M

inim

um A

vera

ged

Scor

e 3.

5)26

Sta

ndar

ds (M

inim

um A

vera

ged

Scor

e 4)

5Des

igni

ng a

nd P

lann

ing

Inst

ruct

ion

– 15

%Des

igni

ng a

nd P

lann

ing

Inst

ruct

ion

– 15

%Des

igni

ng a

nd P

lann

ing

Inst

ruct

ion

– 15

%

6In

stru

ctio

n –

75%

Inst

ruct

ion

– 60

%In

stru

ctio

n –

40%

7Th

e Le

arni

ng E

nviro

nmen

t –

5%Th

e Le

arni

ng E

nviro

nmen

t –

5%Th

e Le

arni

ng E

nviro

nmen

t –

5%

8Re

spon

sibi

litie

s –

5%Re

spon

sibi

litie

s –

20%

Resp

onsi

bilit

ies

– 40

%

9 Gro

win

g an

d Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

ly

Staf

f Dev

elop

men

t

Staf

f Dev

elop

men

t

10 Re

flect

ing

on T

each

ing

In

stru

ctio

nal Su

perv

isio

n

Inst

ruct

iona

l Su

perv

isio

n

11

Men

toring

M

ento

ring

12

Com

mun

ity

Invo

lvem

ent

Co

mm

unity

Invo

lvem

ent

13

Scho

ol R

espo

nsib

ilities

Sc

hool

Res

pons

ibili

ties

14

Gro

win

g an

d Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

ly

Gro

win

g an

d Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

ly

15

Refle

ctin

g on

Tea

chin

g

Refle

ctin

g on

Tea

chin

g

16ev

alua

tors

eval

uato

rsev

alua

tors

17M

ento

r Te

ache

r Re

view

– 2

0%

Men

tor Te

ache

r Re

view

– 2

0%

18M

aste

r Te

ache

r Re

view

– 3

5%M

aste

r Te

ache

r Re

view

– 3

5%M

aste

r (o

r M

ento

r) T

each

er R

evie

w –

35%

19Ad

min

istrat

or R

evie

w –

35%

Adm

inis

trat

or R

evie

w –

35%

Adm

inis

trat

or R

evie

w –

55%

20Se

lf Ev

alua

tion

– 1

0%Se

lf Ev

alua

tion

– 1

0%Se

lf Ev

alua

tion

– 1

0%

21M

easu

rem

ent in

stru

men

tsM

easu

rem

ent in

stru

men

tsM

easu

rem

ent in

stru

men

ts

22Obs

erva

tion

Obs

erva

tion

Obs

erva

tion

23Re

spon

sibi

litie

s Su

rvey

Resp

onsi

bilit

ies

Surv

eyRe

spon

sibi

litie

s Su

rvey

24cl

assr

oom

Ach

ieve

men

t At

trib

uted

to

teac

her

– 30

%*

clas

sroo

m A

chie

vem

ent At

trib

uted

to

teac

her

– 30

%*

clas

sroo

m A

chie

vem

ent At

trib

uted

to

teac

her

– 30

%**

25Le

vel 5

– 2

stan

dard

error

s ab

ove

aver

age

teac

her ga

in in

the

stat

e or

rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ple

26Le

vel 4

– 1

stan

dard

error

abo

ve a

vera

ge tea

cher

gai

n in

the

sta

te o

r re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

27Le

vel 3

– Nei

ther

1 s

tand

ard

erro

r ab

ove

nor be

low

the

ave

rage

tea

cher

gai

n in

the

sta

te o

r re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

28Le

vel 2

– 1

stan

dard

error

bel

ow a

vera

ge tea

cher

gai

n in

the

sta

te o

r re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

29Le

vel 1

– 2

stan

dard

error

s be

low

ave

rage

tea

cher

gai

n in

the

sta

te o

r re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

30Sc

hool

-Wid

e Ac

hiev

emen

t: A

war

d is

equ

ally

Dis

trib

uted

to

All St

aff –

20%

31Le

vel 5

– 2

stan

dard

error

s ab

ove

aver

age

scho

ol g

ain

in the

sta

te o

r re

pres

enta

tive

sam

ple

32Le

vel 4

– 1

stan

dard

error

abo

ve a

vera

ge s

choo

l ga

in in

the

stat

e or

rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ple

33Le

vel 3

– Nei

ther

1 s

tand

ard

erro

r ab

ove

nor be

low

the

ave

rage

sch

ool ga

in in

the

stat

e or

rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ple

34Le

vel 2

– 1

stan

dard

error

bel

ow a

vera

ge s

choo

l ga

in in

the

stat

e or

rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ple

35Le

vel 1

– 2

stan

dard

error

s be

low

ave

rage

sch

ool ga

in in

the

stat

e of

rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ple

Instructionally Focused Accountability and Performance-Based Compensation Summary Line Item Descriptions

Row number Row Description

Row 1 Different career-level teachers in the TAP system (career, mentor, and master)

Row 2 Suggested addendum for career path positions

Row 3 Recommended percentage (out of 100) of the individual performance award that shall be designated for Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities for each level teacher

Row 4 Recommended number of teaching standards and the minimum average performance score for each level teacher to be eligible to earn the portion of the award pool set aside for that criterion

Rows 5-7 Domains of the teaching standards that will be appraised and the percent each domain shall count towards the teacher’s final Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities (SKR) score

Rows 8-15 Recommended responsibility standards

Rows 16-19 Possible evaluators of each teacher’s performance and what percentage each evaluator’s score should count in calculating the total score

Row 20 Percentage of self-evaluation scores calculated in the total score

Rows 21-23 Measurement instruments to evaluate teacher Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities standards

Row 24-29 Recommended percentage of award that shall be designated for classroom achievement attributed to the teacher. Recommended criteria for teachers to earn the student achievement performance award at different levels of achievement.

Row 30 Recommended percentage of the award that shall be designated for school-wide achievement gains

Rows 31-35 Recommended criteria for a school to earn the school-wide performance award at different levels of achievement


2

sectio

nTAP Evaluation System


The TAP Teaching Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities Performance Standards are the backbone of TAP’s Instructionally Focused Accountability element. To measure teaching skills, knowledge, and responsibilities, one must define the skills and determine how they are demonstrated at different levels of performance. These standards were developed based on education psychology and cognitive science research focusing on learning and instruction, as well as an extensive review of publications from national and state teacher standards organizations.

The research for the Teaching Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities Performance Standards includes the following:

» Milanowski, Odden & Youngs (1998) argue that the challenge of creating an effective teacher accountability system is to improve the quality of teacher instruction, and thereby raise student achievement. To do this, Odden and Clune (1998) instruct states and school districts to identify the knowledge and skills that a teacher needs to teach successfully, and then create standards and rubrics to measure teaching performance.

» TAP reviewed instructional guidelines and standards developed by numerous national and state teacher standards organizations and from this information developed its own set of standards for teacher accountability. The work reviewed included guidelines and standards developed by:

n The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) n The National Board for Professional Teacher Standards n Massachusett’s Principles for Effective Teaching n California’s Standards for the Teaching Profession n Connecticut’s Beginning Educator Support Program n The New Teacher Center’s Developmental Continuum of Teacher Abilities » The criteria for the TAP teaching standards came from both experimental design studies

and correlation studies that used valid and reliable achievement tests in classrooms (see Schacter & Thum, 2004).

» The work of Danielson (1996) served as a valuable resource for defining the teaching competencies at each level of teacher performance.

» Rubrics were designed based on the work of Rowley (1999) and various teacher accountability systems, including:

n Rochester (New York) Career in Teaching Program n Douglas County (Colorado) Teacher’s Performance Pay Plan n Vaughn Next Century Charter School (Los Angeles) Performance Pay Plan n Rolla (Missouri) School District Professional Based Teacher Evaluation

The TAP Instruction, Designing and Planning Instruction, and The Learning Environment rubrics are on the following pages. These rubrics and their 26 indicators are only intended for use by administrators, master teachers, and mentor teachers who have successfully completed their initial TAP evaluator certification and annual recertification. A more thorough explanation of the TAP Rubrics is found in the TAP Leadership Team Handbook. Following the rubrics is the evaluation report form used for teacher evaluations and self-evaluations.

Teaching Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities Performance Standards


inStRUction the LeARninG enViRonMent

1. Standards and Objectives* 2. Motivating Students* 3. Presenting Instructional Content*4. Lesson Structure and Pacing*5. Activities and Materials*6. Questioning*7. Academic Feedback*8. Grouping Students*9. Teacher Content Knowledge*10. Teacher Knowledge of Students* 11. Thinking*12. Problem Solving*

1. Expectations* 2. Managing Student Behavior* 3. Environment*4. Respectful Culture*

DeSiGninG AnD PLAnninG inStRUction ReSPonSiBiLitieS

1. Instructional Plans2. Student Work3. Assessment

1. Staff Development**2. Instructional Supervision**3. Mentoring**4. Community Involvement**5. School Responsibilities** 6. Growing and Developing

Professionally7. Reflecting on Teaching

* Indicates criteria that are evaluated during classroom observations. ** Indicates criteria that are only applied to master and mentor teachers.

Teaching Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities Performance Standards Overview


exem

plar

y (5)*

Profi

cien

t (3)*

Unsa

tisfa

ctor

y (1)*

Stan

dard

s an

d obj

ectiv

es

•All

lear

ning

obj

ective

s an

d st

ate

cont

ent st

anda

rds

are

expl

icitly

com

mun

icat

ed.

•Su

b-ob

ject

ives

are

alig

ned

and

logi

cally

seq

uenc

ed

to the

les

son’s

maj

or o

bjec

tive

.•

Lear

ning

obj

ective

s ar

e: (a)

con

sist

ently

conn

ecte

d to

wha

t st

uden

ts h

ave

prev

ious

ly lea

rned

, (b

) kn

ow fro

m life

exp

erie

nces

, an

d (c

) in

tegr

ated

with

othe

r di

scip

lines

. •

Expe

ctat

ions

for

stu

dent

per

form

ance

are

cle

ar,

dem

andi

ng, an

d hi

gh.

•St

ate

stan

dard

s ar

e di

spla

yed

and

refe

renc

ed

thro

ugho

ut the

les

son.

•

Ther

e is

evi

denc

e th

at m

ost st

uden

ts d

emon

stra

te

mas

tery

of th

e ob

ject

ive.

•M

ost le

arni

ng o

bjec

tive

s an

d st

ate

cont

ent

stan

dard

s ar

e co

mm

unic

ated

.•

Sub-

obje

ctiv

es a

re m

ostly

alig

ned

to the

les

son’s

maj

or o

bjec

tive

. •

Lear

ning

obj

ective

s ar

e co

nnec

ted

to w

hat st

uden

ts

have

pre

viou

sly

lear

ned.

•

Expe

ctat

ions

for

stu

dent

per

form

ance

are

cle

ar.

•St

ate

stan

dard

s ar

e di

spla

yed.

•Th

ere

is e

vide

nce

that

mos

t st

uden

ts d

emon

stra

te

mas

tery

of th

e ob

ject

ive.

•Fe

w lea

rnin

g ob

ject

ives

and

sta

te c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

ar

e co

mm

unic

ated

.•

Sub-

obje

ctiv

es a

re inc

onsi

sten

tly

alig

ned

to the

le

sson

’s m

ajor

obj

ective

.•

Lear

ning

obj

ective

s ar

e ra

rely

con

nect

ed to

wha

t st

uden

ts h

ave

prev

ious

ly lea

rned

. •

Expe

ctat

ions

for

stu

dent

per

form

ance

are

vag

ue.

•St

ate

stan

dard

s ar

e di

spla

yed.

•Th

ere

is e

vide

nce

that

few

stu

dent

s de

mon

stra

te

mas

tery

of th

e ob

ject

ive.

Mot

ivat

ing

Stud

ents

•Th

e te

ache

r co

nsis

tent

ly o

rgan

izes

the

con

tent

so

that

it is

per

sona

lly m

eani

ngfu

l an

d re

leva

nt to

stud

ents

.•

The

teac

her co

nsis

tent

ly d

evel

ops

lear

ning

ex

perien

ces

whe

re inq

uiry

, cu

rios

ity, a

nd

expl

orat

ion

are

valu

ed.

•Th

e te

ache

r re

gula

rly

rein

forc

es a

nd rew

ards

effo

rt.

•Th

e te

ache

r so

met

imes

org

aniz

es the

con

tent

so

that

it is

per

sona

lly m

eani

ngfu

l an

d re

leva

nt to

stud

ents

.•

The

teac

her so

met

imes

dev

elop

s le

arni

ng

expe

rien

ces

whe

re inq

uiry

, cu

rios

ity, a

nd e

xplo

ration

ar

e va

lued

.•

The

teac

her so

met

imes

rei

nfor

ces

and

rew

ards

ef

fort.

•Th

e te

ache

r ra

rely

org

aniz

es the

con

tent

so

that

it is

pe

rson

ally

mea

ning

ful an

d re

leva

nt to

stud

ents

.•

The

teac

her ra

rely

dev

elop

s le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

es

whe

re inq

uiry

, cu

rios

ity, a

nd e

xplo

ration

are

val

ued.

•Th

e te

ache

r ra

rely

rei

nfor

ces

and

rew

ards

effo

rt.

Pres

entin

g in

stru

ctio

nal

cont

ent

Pres

enta

tion

of co

nten

t al

way

s in

clud

es:

•vi

sual

s th

at e

stab

lish

the

purp

ose

of the

les

son,

pr

evie

w the

org

aniz

atio

n of

the

les

son,

and

inc

lude

in

tern

al s

umm

arie

s of

the

les

son;

•ex

ampl

es, ill

ustrat

ions

, an

alog

ies,

and

lab

els

for

new

con

cept

s an

d id

eas;

•m

odel

ing

by the

tea

cher

to

dem

onst

rate

his

or he

r pe

rfor

man

ce e

xpec

tation

s;•

conc

ise

com

mun

icat

ion;

•lo

gica

l se

quen

cing

and

seg

men

ting

;•

all es

sent

ial in

form

atio

n an

d;•

no irrel

evan

t, c

onfu

sing

, or

non

esse

ntia

l in

form

atio

n.

Pres

enta

tion

of co

nten

t m

ost of

the

tim

e in

clud

es:

•vi

sual

s th

at e

stab

lish

the

purp

ose

of the

les

son,

pr

evie

w the

org

aniz

atio

n of

the

les

son,

and

inc

lude

in

tern

al s

umm

arie

s of

the

les

son;

•

exam

ples

, ill

ustrat

ions

, an

alog

ies,

and

lab

els

for

new

con

cept

s an

d id

eas;

•m

odel

ing

by the

tea

cher

to

dem

onst

rate

his

or he

r pe

rfor

man

ce e

xpec

tation

s;•

conc

ise

com

mun

icat

ion;

•lo

gica

l se

quen

cing

and

seg

men

ting

;•

all es

sent

ial in

form

atio

n an

d;

•no

irrel

evan

t, c

onfu

sing

, or

non

esse

ntia

l in

form

atio

n.

Pres

enta

tion

of co

nten

t ra

rely

inc

lude

s:•

visu

als

that

est

ablis

h th

e pu

rpos

e of

the

les

son,

pr

evie

w the

org

aniz

atio

n of

the

les

son,

and

inc

lude

in

tern

al s

umm

arie

s of

the

les

son;

•

exam

ples

, ill

ustrat

ions

, an

alog

ies,

and

lab

els

for

new

con

cept

s an

d id

eas;

•m

odel

ing

by the

tea

cher

to

dem

onst

rate

his

or he

r pe

rfor

man

ce e

xpec

tation

s;•

conc

ise

com

mun

icat

ion;

•lo

gica

l se

quen

cing

and

seg

men

ting

;•

all es

sent

ial in

form

atio

n an

d;•

no irrel

evan

t, c

onfu

sing

, or

non

esse

ntia

l in

form

atio

n.

Less

on

Stru

ctur

e an

d Pa

cing

•All

less

ons

star

t pr

ompt

ly.

•Th

e le

sson

’s s

truc

ture

is

cohe

rent

, w

ith

a be

ginn

ing,

mid

dle,

end

, an

d tim

e fo

r re

flect

ion.

•Pa

cing

is

bris

k an

d pr

ovid

es m

any

oppo

rtun

itie

s fo

r in

divi

dual

stu

dent

s w

ho p

rogr

ess

at d

iffer

ent

lear

ning

rat

es.

•Ro

utin

es for

dis

trib

utin

g m

ater

ials

are

sea

mle

ss.

•No

inst

ruct

iona

l tim

e is

los

t du

ring

tra

nsitio

ns.

•M

ost le

sson

s st

art pr

ompt

ly.

•Th

e le

sson

’s s

truc

ture

is

cohe

rent

, w

ith

a be

ginn

ing,

m

iddl

e, a

nd e

nd.

•Pa

cing

is

appr

opriat

e an

d so

met

imes

pro

vide

s op

portun

itie

s fo

r st

uden

ts w

ho p

rogr

ess

at d

iffer

ent

lear

ning

rat

es.

•Ro

utin

es for

dis

trib

utin

g m

ater

ials

are

effi

cien

t.•

Little

ins

truc

tion

al tim

e is

los

t du

ring

tra

nsitio

ns.

•Le

sson

s ar

e no

t st

arte

d pr

ompt

ly.

•Th

e le

sson

has

a s

truc

ture

, bu

t m

ay b

e m

issi

ng

clos

ure

or int

rodu

ctor

y el

emen

ts.

•Pa

cing

is

appr

opriat

e fo

r le

ss tha

n ha

lf of

the

st

uden

ts a

nd rar

ely

prov

ides

opp

ortu

nities

for

st

uden

ts w

ho p

rogr

ess

at d

iffer

ent le

arni

ng rat

es.

•Ro

utin

es for

dis

trib

utin

g m

ater

ials

are

ine

ffici

ent.

•Co

nsid

erab

le tim

e is

los

t du

ring

tra

nsitio

ns.

Inst

ruct

ion

* Per

form

ance

defi

nitio

ns ar

e pro

vide

d at

leve

ls 5,

3, a

nd 1

. Rat

ers c

an sc

ore p

erfo

rman

ce at

leve

ls 2

or 4

bas

ed o

n th

eir p

rofe

ssio

nal j

udgm

ent.


exem

plar

y (5)

Profi

cien

t (3)

Unsa

tisfa

ctor

y (1)

Activ

ities

and

M

ater

ials

Activi

ties

and

mat

eria

ls inc

lude

all

of the

fol

low

ing:

•su

ppor

t th

e le

sson

obj

ective

s;•

are

chal

leng

ing;

•su

stai

n st

uden

ts’ a

tten

tion

;•

elic

it a

var

iety

of th

inki

ng;

•pr

ovid

e tim

e fo

r re

flect

ion;

•ar

e re

leva

nt to

stud

ents

’ liv

es;

•pr

ovid

e op

portun

itie

s fo

r st

uden

t-to

-stu

dent

in

tera

ctio

n;•

indu

ce s

tude

nt c

urio

sity

and

sus

pens

e;•

prov

ide

stud

ents

with

choi

ces;

•in

corp

orat

e m

ultim

edia

and

tec

hnol

ogy

and;

•in

corp

orat

e re

sour

ces

beyo

nd the

sch

ool

curric

ulum

tex

ts (e.

g., te

ache

r-m

ade

mat

eria

ls,

man

ipul

ativ

es, re

sour

ces

from

mus

eum

s,

cultur

al c

ente

rs, et

c.).

•In

add

itio

n, s

omet

imes

act

ivitie

s ar

e ga

me-

like,

in

volv

e si

mul

atio

ns, re

quire

cre

atin

g pr

oduc

ts, an

d de

man

d se

lf-di

rect

ion

and

self-

mon

itor

ing.

Activi

ties

and

mat

eria

ls inc

lude

mos

t of

the

fol

low

ing:

•su

ppor

t th

e le

sson

obj

ective

s;•

are

chal

leng

ing;

•su

stai

n st

uden

ts’ a

tten

tion

;•

elic

it a

var

iety

of th

inki

ng;

•pr

ovid

e tim

e fo

r re

flect

ion;

•ar

e re

leva

nt to

stud

ents

’ liv

es;

•pr

ovid

e op

portun

itie

s fo

r st

uden

t-to

-stu

dent

in

tera

ctio

n;•

indu

ce s

tude

nt c

urio

sity

and

sus

pens

e;•

prov

ide

stud

ents

with

choi

ces;

•in

corp

orat

e m

ultim

edia

and

tec

hnol

ogy

and;

•in

corp

orat

e re

sour

ces

beyo

nd the

sch

ool

curric

ulum

tex

ts (e.

g., te

ache

r-m

ade

mat

eria

ls,

man

ipul

ativ

es, re

sour

ces

from

mus

eum

s,

cultur

al c

ente

rs, et

c.).

Activi

ties

and

mat

eria

ls inc

lude

few

of th

e fo

llow

ing:

•su

ppor

t th

e le

sson

obj

ective

s;•

are

chal

leng

ing;

•su

stai

n st

uden

ts’ a

tten

tion

;•

elic

it a

var

iety

of th

inki

ng;

•pr

ovid

e tim

e fo

r re

flect

ion;

•ar

e re

leva

nt to

stud

ents

’ liv

es;

•pr

ovid

e op

portun

itie

s fo

r st

uden

t-to

-stu

dent

in

tera

ctio

n;•

indu

ce s

tude

nt c

urio

sity

and

sus

pens

e;•

prov

ide

stud

ents

with

choi

ces;

•in

corp

orat

e m

ultim

edia

and

tec

hnol

ogy

and;

•in

corp

orat

e re

sour

ces

beyo

nd the

sch

ool

curric

ulum

tex

ts (e.

g., te

ache

r-m

ade

mat

eria

ls,

man

ipul

ativ

es, re

sour

ces

from

mus

eum

s, e

tc.).

Que

stio

ning

Teac

her qu

estion

s ar

e va

ried

and

hig

h qu

ality, p

rovi

ding

a

bala

nced

mix

of qu

estion

typ

es:

okn

owle

dge

and

com

preh

ensi

on;

oap

plic

atio

n an

d an

alys

is; an

docr

eation

and

eva

luat

ion.

•Que

stio

ns a

re c

onsi

sten

tly

purp

osef

ul a

nd

cohe

rent

.•

A hi

gh fre

quen

cy o

f qu

estion

s is

ask

ed.

•Que

stio

ns a

re c

onsi

sten

tly

sequ

ence

d w

ith

atte

ntio

n to

the

ins

truc

tion

al g

oals

.•

Que

stio

ns reg

ular

ly req

uire

act

ive

resp

onse

s (e

.g.,

who

le c

lass

sig

nalin

g, c

hora

l re

spon

ses,

written

an

d sh

ared

res

pons

es, or

gro

up a

nd ind

ivid

ual

answ

ers)

. •

Wai

t tim

e (3

-5 s

econ

ds) is

con

sist

ently

prov

ided

.•

The

teac

her ca

lls o

n vo

lunt

eers

and

non

volu

ntee

rs,

and

a ba

lanc

e of

stu

dent

s ba

sed

on a

bilit

y an

d se

x.•

Stud

ents

gen

erat

e qu

estion

s th

at lea

d to

fur

ther

in

quiry

and

self-

dire

cted

lea

rnin

g.

Teac

her qu

estion

s ar

e va

ried

and

hig

h qu

ality, p

rovi

ding

fo

r so

me,

but

not

all,

que

stio

n ty

pes:

okn

owle

dge

and

com

preh

ensi

on;

oap

plic

atio

n an

d an

alys

is; an

docr

eation

and

eva

luat

ion.

•

Que

stio

ns a

re u

sual

ly p

urpo

sefu

l an

d co

here

nt.

•A

mod

erat

e freq

uenc

y of

que

stio

ns a

sked

.•

Que

stio

ns a

re s

omet

imes

seq

uenc

ed w

ith

atte

ntio

n to

the

ins

truc

tion

al g

oals

.•

Que

stio

ns s

omet

imes

req

uire

act

ive

resp

onse

s (e

.g.,

who

le c

lass

sig

nalin

g, c

hora

l re

spon

ses,

or gr

oup

and

indi

vidu

al a

nsw

ers)

. •

Wai

t tim

e is

som

etim

es p

rovi

ded.

•Th

e te

ache

r ca

lls o

n vo

lunt

eers

and

non

volu

ntee

rs,

and

a ba

lanc

e of

stu

dent

s ba

sed

on a

bilit

y an

d se

x.

Teac

her qu

estion

s ar

e in

cons

iste

nt in

qual

ity

and

incl

ude

few

que

stio

n ty

pes:

okn

owle

dge

and

com

preh

ensi

on;

oap

plic

atio

n an

d an

alys

is; an

docr

eation

and

eva

luat

ion.

•

Que

stio

ns a

re ran

dom

and

lac

k co

here

nce.

•A

low

fre

quen

cy o

f qu

estion

s is

ask

ed.

•Que

stio

ns a

re rar

ely

sequ

ence

d w

ith

atte

ntio

n to

th

e in

stru

ctio

nal go

als.

•Que

stio

ns rar

ely

requ

ire a

ctiv

e re

spon

ses

(e.g

., w

hole

cla

ss s

igna

ling,

cho

ral re

spon

ses,

or gr

oup

and

indi

vidu

al a

nsw

ers)

. •

Wai

t tim

e is

inc

onsi

sten

tly

prov

ided

.•

The

teac

her m

ostly

calls

on

volu

ntee

rs a

nd h

igh

abili

ty s

tude

nts.

Inst

ruct

ion

Cont

inue

d


exem

plar

y (5)

Profi

cien

t (3)

Unsa

tisfa

ctor

y (1)

Acad

emic

Fe

edba

ck•

Ora

l an

d w

ritten

fee

dbac

k is

con

sist

ently

acad

emic

ally

foc

used

, freq

uent

, an

d hi

gh q

ualit

y.•

Feed

back

is

freq

uent

ly g

iven

dur

ing

guid

ed

prac

tice

and

hom

ewor

k re

view

.•

The

teac

her ci

rcul

ates

to

prom

pt s

tude

nt thi

nkin

g,

asse

ss e

ach

stud

ent’s

pro

gres

s, a

nd p

rovi

de

indi

vidu

al fee

dbac

k.•

Feed

back

fro

m s

tude

nts

is reg

ular

ly u

sed

to

mon

itor

and

adj

ust in

stru

ctio

n.•

Teac

her en

gage

s st

uden

ts in

givi

ng s

peci

fic a

nd

high

-qua

lity

feed

back

to

one

anot

her.

•Ora

l an

d w

ritten

fee

dbac

k is

mos

tly

acad

emic

ally

fo

cuse

d, fre

quen

t, a

nd m

ostly

high

qua

lity.

•Fe

edba

ck is

som

etim

es g

iven

dur

ing

guid

ed p

ract

ice

and

hom

ewor

k re

view

.•

The

teac

her ci

rcul

ates

dur

ing

inst

ruct

iona

l ac

tivi

ties

to

sup

port e

ngag

emen

t an

d m

onitor

stu

dent

wor

k.•

Feed

back

fro

m s

tude

nts

is s

omet

imes

use

d to

m

onitor

and

adj

ust in

stru

ctio

n.

•Th

e qu

ality

and

tim

elin

ess

of fee

dbac

k is

in

cons

iste

nt.

•Fe

edba

ck is

rare

ly g

iven

dur

ing

guid

ed p

ract

ice

and

hom

ewor

k re

view

.•

The

teac

her ci

rcul

ates

dur

ing

inst

ruct

iona

l ac

tivi

ties

, bu

t m

onitor

s m

ostly

beha

vior

.•

Feed

back

fro

m s

tude

nts

is rar

ely

used

to

mon

itor

or

adju

st ins

truc

tion

.

Gro

upin

g St

uden

ts•

The

inst

ruct

iona

l gr

oupi

ng a

rran

gem

ents

(ei

ther

w

hole

cla

ss, sm

all gr

oups

, pa

irs,

or in

divi

dual

; he

tero

gene

ous

or h

omog

eneo

us a

bilit

y)

cons

iste

ntly

max

imiz

e st

uden

t un

ders

tand

ing

and

lear

ning

effi

cien

cy.

•All

stud

ents

in

grou

ps k

now

the

ir rol

es,

resp

onsi

bilit

ies,

and

gro

up w

ork

expe

ctat

ions

.•

All

stud

ents

par

tici

pating

in

grou

ps a

re h

eld

acco

unta

ble

for gr

oup

wor

k an

d in

divi

dual

wor

k.•

Inst

ruct

iona

l gr

oup

com

posi

tion

is

varied

(e.

g.,

race

, ge

nder

, ab

ility

, an

d ag

e) to

best

acc

ompl

ish

the

goal

s of

the

les

son.

•

Inst

ruct

iona

l gr

oups

fac

ilita

te o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

st

uden

ts to

set go

als,

refl

ect on

, an

d ev

alua

te

thei

r le

arni

ng.

•Th

e in

stru

ctio

nal gr

oupi

ng a

rran

gem

ents

(ei

ther

w

hole

cla

ss, sm

all gr

oups

, pa

irs,

or in

divi

dual

; he

tero

gene

ous

or h

omog

eneo

us a

bilit

y) a

dequ

atel

y en

hanc

e st

uden

t un

ders

tand

ing

and

lear

ning

ef

ficie

ncy.

•M

ost st

uden

ts in

grou

ps k

now

the

ir rol

es,

resp

onsi

bilit

ies,

and

gro

up w

ork

expe

ctat

ions

.•

Mos

t st

uden

ts p

artici

pating

in

grou

ps a

re h

eld

acco

unta

ble

for gr

oup

wor

k an

d in

divi

dual

wor

k.•

Inst

ruct

iona

l gr

oup

com

posi

tion

is

varied

(e.

g.,

race

, ge

nder

, ab

ility

, an

d ag

e) to,

mos

t of

the

tim

e,

acco

mpl

ish

the

goal

s of

the

les

son.

•Th

e in

stru

ctio

nal gr

oupi

ng a

rran

gem

ents

(ei

ther

w

hole

cla

ss, sm

all gr

oups

, pa

irs,

or in

divi

dual

; he

tero

gene

ous

or h

omog

eneo

us a

bilit

y) inh

ibit

stud

ent un

ders

tand

ing

and

lear

ning

effi

cien

cy.

•Fe

w s

tude

nts

in g

roup

s kn

ow the

ir rol

es,

resp

onsi

bilit

ies,

and

gro

up w

ork

expe

ctat

ions

.•

Few

stu

dent

s pa

rtic

ipat

ing

in g

roup

s ar

e he

ld

acco

unta

ble

for gr

oup

wor

k an

d in

divi

dual

wor

k.•

Inst

ruct

iona

l gr

oup

com

posi

tion

rem

ains

unc

hang

ed,

irre

spec

tive

of th

e le

arni

ng a

nd ins

truc

tion

al g

oals

of

a les

son.

teac

her

cont

ent

Kno

wle

dge

•Te

ache

r di

spla

ys e

xten

sive

con

tent

kno

wle

dge

of

all th

e su

bjec

ts s

he o

r he

tea

ches

. •

Teac

her re

gula

rly

impl

emen

ts a

var

iety

of su

bjec

t-sp

ecifi

c in

stru

ctio

nal st

rate

gies

to

enha

nce

stud

ent

cont

ent kn

owle

dge.

•Th

e te

ache

r re

gula

rly

high

light

s ke

y co

ncep

ts a

nd

idea

s an

d us

es the

m a

s ba

ses

to c

onne

ct o

ther

po

wer

ful id

eas.

•

Lim

ited

con

tent

is

taug

ht in

suffi

cien

t de

pth

to

allo

w for

the

dev

elop

men

t of

und

erst

andi

ng.

•Te

ache

r di

spla

ys a

ccur

ate

cont

ent kn

owle

dge

of a

ll th

e su

bjec

ts h

e or

she

tea

ches

.•

Teac

her so

met

imes

im

plem

ents

sub

ject

-spe

cific

in

stru

ctio

nal st

rate

gies

to

enha

nce

stud

ent co

nten

t kn

owle

dge.

•Th

e te

ache

r so

met

imes

hig

hlig

hts

key

conc

epts

and

id

eas

and

uses

the

m a

s ba

ses

to c

onne

ct o

ther

po

wer

ful id

eas.

•Te

ache

r di

spla

ys u

nder

-dev

elop

ed c

onte

nt

know

ledg

e in

sev

eral

sub

ject

are

as.

•Te

ache

r ra

rely

im

plem

ents

sub

ject

-spe

cific

in

stru

ctio

nal st

rate

gies

to

enha

nce

stud

ent co

nten

t kn

owle

dge.

•Te

ache

r do

es n

ot u

nder

stan

d ke

y co

ncep

ts a

nd

idea

s in

the

dis

cipl

ine

and

ther

efor

e pr

esen

ts

cont

ent in

an

unco

nnec

ted

way

.

teac

her

Kno

wle

dge

of

Stud

ents

•Te

ache

r pr

actice

s di

spla

y un

ders

tand

ing

of e

ach

stud

ent’s

ant

icip

ated

lea

rnin

g di

fficu

ltie

s.•

Teac

her pr

actice

s re

gula

rly

inco

rpor

ate

stud

ent

inte

rest

s an

d cu

ltur

al h

eritag

e.•

Teac

her re

gula

rly

prov

ides

diff

eren

tiat

ed

inst

ruct

iona

l m

etho

ds a

nd c

onte

nt to

ensu

re

child

ren

have

the

opp

ortu

nity

to

mas

ter w

hat is

be

ing

taug

ht.

•Te

ache

r pr

actice

s di

spla

y un

ders

tand

ing

of s

ome

stud

ents

’ ant

icip

ated

lea

rnin

g di

fficu

ltie

s.•

Teac

her pr

actice

s so

met

imes

inc

orpo

rate

stu

dent

in

tere

sts

and

cultur

al h

eritag

e.•

Teac

her so

met

imes

pro

vide

s di

ffere

ntia

ted

inst

ruct

iona

l m

etho

ds a

nd c

onte

nt to

ensu

re

child

ren

have

the

opp

ortu

nity

to

mas

ter w

hat is

be

ing

taug

ht.

•Te

ache

r pr

actice

s de

mon

stra

te m

inim

al k

now

ledg

e of

stu

dent

s’ a

ntic

ipat

ed lea

rnin

g di

fficu

ltie

s.•

Teac

her pr

actice

s ra

rely

inc

orpo

rate

stu

dent

int

eres

ts

or c

ultu

ral he

rita

ge.

•Te

ache

r pr

actice

s de

mon

stra

te little

diffe

rent

iation

of

inst

ruct

iona

l m

etho

ds o

r co

nten

t.

Inst

ruct

ion

Cont

inue

d


exem

plar

y (5)

Profi

cien

t (3)

Unsa

tisfa

ctor

y (1)

thin

king

Ove

r th

e co

urse

of m

ultipl

e ob

serv

atio

ns, th

e te

ache

r co

nsis

tent

ly a

nd tho

roug

hly

teac

hes

all fo

ur typ

es o

f th

inki

ng:

•an

alyt

ical

thi

nkin

g, w

here

stu

dent

s an

alyz

e,

com

pare

and

con

tras

t, a

nd e

valu

ate

and

expl

ain

info

rmat

ion;

•pr

actica

l th

inki

ng, w

here

stu

dent

s us

e, a

pply,

and

impl

emen

t w

hat th

ey lea

rn in

real

-life

sc

enar

ios;

•cr

eative

thi

nkin

g, w

here

stu

dent

s cr

eate

, de

sign

, im

agin

e, a

nd s

uppo

se a

nd;

•re

sear

ch-b

ased

thi

nkin

g, w

here

stu

dent

s ex

plor

e an

d re

view

a v

arie

ty o

f id

eas,

mod

els,

an

d so

lution

s to

pro

blem

s.Th

e te

ache

r re

gula

rly

prov

ides

opp

ortu

nities

whe

re

stud

ents

:•

gene

rate

a v

arie

ty o

f id

eas

and

alte

rnat

ives

; •

anal

yze

prob

lem

s from

mul

tipl

e pe

rspe

ctiv

es

and

view

poin

ts a

nd;

•m

onitor

the

ir thi

nkin

g to

ens

ure

that

the

y un

ders

tand

wha

t th

ey a

re lea

rnin

g, a

re

atte

ndin

g to

critica

l in

form

atio

n, a

nd a

re

awar

e of

the

lea

rnin

g st

rate

gies

tha

t th

ey a

re

usin

g an

d w

hy.

Ove

r th

e co

urse

of m

ultipl

e ob

serv

atio

ns, th

e te

ache

r co

nsis

tent

ly a

nd tho

roug

hly

teac

hes

two

type

s of

th

inki

ng:

•an

alyt

ical

thi

nkin

g, w

here

stu

dent

s an

alyz

e,

com

pare

and

con

tras

t, a

nd e

valu

ate

and

expl

ain

info

rmat

ion;

•pr

actica

l th

inki

ng, w

here

stu

dent

s us

e, a

pply,

and

impl

emen

t w

hat th

ey lea

rn in

real

-life

sc

enar

ios;

•cr

eative

thi

nkin

g, w

here

stu

dent

s cr

eate

, de

sign

, im

agin

e, a

nd s

uppo

se a

nd;

•re

sear

ch-b

ased

thi

nkin

g, w

here

stu

dent

s ex

plor

e an

d re

view

a v

arie

ty o

f id

eas,

mod

els,

an

d so

lution

s to

pro

blem

s.Th

e te

ache

r so

met

imes

pro

vide

s op

portun

itie

s w

here

st

uden

ts:

•ge

nera

te a

var

iety

of id

eas

and

alte

rnat

ives

an

d;

•an

alyz

e pr

oble

ms

from

mul

tipl

e pe

rspe

ctiv

es

and

view

poin

ts.

The

teac

her im

plem

ents

few

lea

rnin

g ex

perien

ces

that

th

orou

ghly

tea

ch a

ny typ

e of

thi

nkin

g.

The

teac

her pr

ovid

es few

opp

ortu

nities

whe

re s

tude

nts:

•

gene

rate

a v

arie

ty o

f id

eas

and

alte

rnat

ives

and

; •

anal

yze

prob

lem

s from

mul

tipl

e pe

rspe

ctiv

es a

nd

view

poin

ts.

NOTE

: If

the

teac

her re

gula

rly

and

thor

ough

ly tea

ches

on

e ty

pe o

f th

inki

ng, he

or sh

e sh

all re

ceiv

e a

scor

e of

2.

Prob

lem

So

lvin

g

Ove

r th

e co

urse

of m

ultipl

e ob

serv

atio

ns the

tea

cher

im

plem

ents

act

ivitie

s th

at tea

ch a

nd rei

nfor

ce 6

or m

ore

of the

fol

low

ing

prob

lem

-sol

ving

typ

es.

•Ab

stra

ctio

n•

Cate

goriza

tion

•Dra

win

g Co

nclu

sion

s/Ju

stify

ing

Solu

tion

s•

Pred

icting

Out

com

es•

Obs

ervi

ng a

nd E

xper

imen

ting

•Im

prov

ing

Solu

tion

s•

Iden

tify

ing

Rele

vant

/Irre

leva

nt Inf

orm

atio

n•

Gen

erat

ing

Idea

s•

Crea

ting

and

Des

igni

ng

Ove

r th

e co

urse

of m

ultipl

e ob

serv

atio

ns the

tea

cher

im

plem

ents

act

ivitie

s th

at tea

ch a

nd rei

nfor

ce 4

or m

ore

of the

fol

low

ing

prob

lem

-sol

ving

typ

es.

•Ab

stra

ctio

n•

Cate

goriza

tion

•Dra

win

g Co

nclu

sion

s/Ju

stify

ing

Solu

tion

•Pr

edic

ting

Out

com

es•

Obs

ervi

ng a

nd E

xper

imen

ting

•Im

prov

ing

Solu

tion

s•

Iden

tify

ing

Rele

vant

/Irre

leva

nt Inf

orm

atio

n•

Gen

erat

ing

Idea

s•

Crea

ting

and

Des

igni

ng

Ove

r th

e co

urse

of m

ultipl

e ob

serv

atio

ns the

tea

cher

im

plem

ents

les

s th

an 2

act

ivitie

s th

at tea

ch the

fol

low

ing

prob

lem

-sol

ving

typ

es.

•Ab

stra

ctio

n•

Cate

goriza

tion

•Dra

win

g Co

nclu

sion

s/Ju

stify

ing

Solu

tion

•Pr

edic

ting

Out

com

es•

Obs

ervi

ng a

nd E

xper

imen

ting

•Im

prov

ing

Solu

tion

s•

Iden

tify

ing

Rele

vant

/Irre

leva

nt Inf

orm

atio

n•

Gen

erat

ing

Idea

s•

Crea

ting

and

Des

igni

ng

Inst

ruct

ion

Cont

inue

d


exem

plar

y (5)

Profi

cien

t (3)

Unsa

tisfa

ctor

y (1)

inst

ruct

iona

l Pl

ans

Inst

ruct

iona

l pl

ans

incl

ude:

•

mea

sura

ble

and

expl

icit g

oals

alig

ned

to s

tate

co

nten

t st

anda

rds;

•ac

tivi

ties

, m

ater

ials

, an

d as

sess

men

ts tha

t:oar

e al

igne

d to

sta

te s

tand

ards

. oar

e se

quen

ced

from

bas

ic to

com

plex

. obu

ild o

n pr

ior st

uden

t kn

owle

dge,

are

re

leva

nt to

stud

ents

’ liv

es, an

d in

tegr

ate

othe

r di

scip

lines

.opr

ovid

e ap

prop

riat

e tim

e fo

r st

uden

t w

ork,

st

uden

t re

flect

ion,

and

les

son

and

unit

clos

ure;

•

evid

ence

tha

t pl

an is

appr

opriat

e fo

r th

e ag

e,

know

ledg

e, a

nd int

eres

ts o

f al

l le

arne

rs a

nd;

•ev

iden

ce tha

t th

e pl

an p

rovi

des

regu

lar

oppo

rtun

itie

s to

acc

omm

odat

e in

divi

dual

stu

dent

ne

eds.

Inst

ruct

iona

l pl

ans

incl

ude:

•

goal

s al

igne

d to

sta

te c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

;•

activi

ties

, m

ater

ials

, an

d as

sess

men

ts tha

t:oar

e al

igne

d to

sta

te s

tand

ards

. oar

e se

quen

ced

from

bas

ic to

com

plex

. obu

ild o

n pr

ior st

uden

t kn

owle

dge.

opr

ovid

e ap

prop

riat

e tim

e fo

r st

uden

t w

ork,

and

le

sson

and

uni

t cl

osur

e;

•ev

iden

ce tha

t pl

an is

appr

opriat

e fo

r th

e ag

e,

know

ledg

e, a

nd int

eres

ts o

f m

ost le

arne

rs a

nd;

•ev

iden

ce tha

t th

e pl

an p

rovi

des

som

e op

portun

itie

s to

acc

omm

odat

e in

divi

dual

stu

dent

nee

ds.

Inst

ruct

iona

l pl

ans

incl

ude:

•fe

w g

oals

alig

ned

to s

tate

con

tent

sta

ndar

ds;

•ac

tivi

ties

, m

ater

ials

, an

d as

sess

men

ts tha

t:oar

e ra

rely

alig

ned

to s

tate

sta

ndar

ds.

oar

e ra

rely

log

ical

ly s

eque

nced

.ora

rely

bui

ld o

n pr

ior st

uden

t kn

owle

dge

oin

cons

iste

ntly

pro

vide

tim

e fo

r st

uden

t w

ork,

an

d le

sson

and

uni

t cl

osur

e;•

little

evid

ence

tha

t th

e pl

an is

appr

opriat

e fo

r th

e ag

e, k

now

ledg

e, o

r in

tere

sts

of the

lea

rner

s an

d;•

little

evid

ence

tha

t th

e pl

an p

rovi

des

som

e op

portun

itie

s to

acc

omm

odat

e in

divi

dual

stu

dent

ne

eds.

Stud

ent W

ork

Ass

ignm

ents

req

uire

stu

dent

s to

:•

orga

nize

, in

terp

ret, a

naly

ze, sy

nthe

size

, an

d ev

alua

te inf

orm

atio

n ra

ther

tha

n re

prod

uce

it;

•dr

aw c

oncl

usio

ns, m

ake

gene

raliz

atio

ns,

and

prod

uce

argu

men

ts tha

t ar

e su

ppor

ted

thro

ugh

exte

nded

writing

and

;•

conn

ect w

hat th

ey a

re lea

rnin

g to

exp

erie

nces

, ob

serv

atio

ns, fe

elin

gs, or

situa

tion

s si

gnifi

cant

in

the

ir d

aily

liv

es, bo

th ins

ide

and

outs

ide

of

scho

ol.

Ass

ignm

ents

req

uire

stu

dent

s to

:•

inte

rpre

t in

form

atio

n ra

ther

tha

n re

prod

uce

it;

•dr

aw c

oncl

usio

ns a

nd s

uppo

rt the

m thr

ough

w

riting

and

;•

conn

ect w

hat th

ey a

re lea

rnin

g to

prior

le

arni

ng a

nd s

ome

life

expe

rien

ces.

Ass

ignm

ents

req

uire

stu

dent

s to

:•

mos

tly

repr

oduc

e in

form

atio

n;•

rare

ly d

raw

con

clus

ions

and

sup

port the

m

thro

ugh

writing

and

;•

rare

ly c

onne

ct w

hat th

ey a

re lea

rnin

g to

prior

le

arni

ng o

r lif

e ex

perien

ces.

Asse

ssm

ent

Ass

essm

ent Pl

ans:

•ar

e al

igne

d w

ith

stat

e co

nten

t st

anda

rds;

•ha

ve c

lear

mea

sure

men

t cr

iter

ia;

•m

easu

re s

tude

nt p

erfo

rman

ce in

mor

e th

an thr

ee

way

s (e

.g.,

in the

for

m o

f a

proj

ect, e

xper

imen

t,

pres

enta

tion

, es

say, s

hort a

nsw

er, or

mul

tipl

e ch

oice

tes

t;•

requ

ire e

xten

ded

written

tas

ks;

•ar

e po

rtfo

lio-b

ased

with

clea

r ill

ustrat

ions

of

stud

ent pr

ogre

ss tow

ard

stat

e co

nten

t st

anda

rds

and;

•in

clud

e de

script

ions

of ho

w a

sses

smen

t re

sults

will

be

use

d to

inf

orm

fut

ure

inst

ruct

ion.

Ass

essm

ent Pl

ans:

•ar

e al

igne

d w

ith

stat

e co

nten

t st

anda

rds;

•ha

ve m

easu

rem

ent cr

iter

ia;

•m

easu

re s

tude

nt p

erfo

rman

ce in

mor

e th

an tw

o w

ays

(e.g

., in

the

for

m o

f a

proj

ect, e

xper

imen

t,

pres

enta

tion

, es

say, s

hort a

nsw

er, or

mul

tipl

e ch

oice

tes

t);

•re

quire

written

tas

ks a

nd;

•in

clud

e pe

rfor

man

ce c

heck

s th

roug

hout

the

sch

ool

year

.

Ass

essm

ent Pl

ans:

•ar

e ra

rely

alig

ned

with

stat

e co

nten

t st

anda

rds;

•ha

ve a

mbi

guou

s m

easu

rem

ent cr

iter

ia;

•m

easu

re s

tude

nt p

erfo

rman

ce in

less

tha

n tw

o w

ays

(e.g

., in

the

for

m o

f a

proj

ect, e

xper

imen

t,

pres

enta

tion

, es

say, s

hort a

nsw

er, or

mul

tipl

e ch

oice

te

st) an

d;•

incl

ude

perfor

man

ce c

heck

s, a

ltho

ugh

the

purp

ose

of the

se c

heck

s is

not

cle

ar.

Des

igni

ng a

nd P

lann

ing

Inst

ruct

ion


exem

plar

y (5)

Profi

cien

t (3)

Unsa

tisfa

ctor

y (1)

expe

ctat

ions

•Te

ache

r se

ts h

igh

and

dem

andi

ng a

cade

mic

ex

pect

atio

ns for

eve

ry s

tude

nt.

•Te

ache

r en

cour

ages

stu

dent

s to

lea

rn fro

m

mis

take

s.•

Teac

her cr

eate

s le

arni

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

whe

re a

ll st

uden

ts c

an e

xper

ienc

e su

cces

s.•

Stud

ents

tak

e in

itia

tive

and

fol

low

thr

ough

with

thei

r ow

n w

ork.

•Te

ache

r op

tim

izes

ins

truc

tion

al tim

e, tea

ches

mor

e m

ater

ial,

and

dem

ands

bet

ter pe

rfor

man

ce fro

m

ever

y st

uden

t.

•Te

ache

r se

ts h

igh

and

dem

andi

ng a

cade

mic

ex

pect

atio

ns for

eve

ry s

tude

nt.

•Te

ache

r en

cour

ages

stu

dent

s to

lea

rn fro

m

mis

take

s.•

Teac

her cr

eate

s le

arni

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

whe

re m

ost

stud

ents

can

exp

erie

nce

succ

ess.

•

Stud

ents

com

plet

e th

eir w

ork

acco

rdin

g to

tea

cher

ex

pect

atio

ns.

•Te

ache

r ex

pect

atio

ns a

re n

ot s

uffic

ient

ly h

igh

for

ever

y st

uden

t.•

Teac

her cr

eate

s an

env

ironm

ent w

here

mis

take

s an

d fa

ilure

are

not

vie

wed

as

lear

ning

exp

erie

nces

.•

Stud

ents

dem

onst

rate

little

or n

o pr

ide

in the

qu

ality

of the

ir w

ork.

Man

agin

g St

uden

t Beh

avio

r

•St

uden

ts a

re c

onsi

sten

tly

wel

l-beh

aved

and

on

task

. •

Teac

her an

d st

uden

ts e

stab

lish

clea

r ru

les

for

lear

ning

and

beh

avio

r.•

The

teac

her us

es s

ever

al tec

hniq

ues,

suc

h as

soc

ial ap

prov

al, co

ntin

gent

act

ivitie

s, a

nd

cons

eque

nces

to

mai

ntai

n ap

prop

riat

e st

uden

t be

havi

or.

•Th

e te

ache

r ov

erlo

oks

inco

nseq

uent

ial be

havi

or.

•Th

e te

ache

r de

als

with

stud

ents

who

hav

e ca

used

di

srup

tion

s ra

ther

tha

n th

e en

tire

cla

ss.

•Th

e te

ache

r at

tend

s to

dis

rupt

ions

qui

ckly

and

fir

mly.

•St

uden

ts a

re m

ostly

wel

l-beh

aved

and

on

task

, so

me

min

or lea

rnin

g di

srup

tion

s m

ay o

ccur

.•

Teac

her es

tabl

ishe

s ru

les

for le

arni

ng a

nd b

ehav

ior.

•Th

e te

ache

r us

es s

ome

tech

niqu

es, su

ch a

s so

cial

ap

prov

al, co

ntin

gent

act

ivitie

s, a

nd c

onse

quen

ces

to m

aint

ain

appr

opriat

e st

uden

t be

havi

or.

•Th

e te

ache

r ov

erlo

oks

som

e in

cons

eque

ntia

l be

havi

or, bu

t ot

her tim

es a

ddre

sses

it, s

topp

ing

the

less

on.

•Th

e te

ache

r de

als

with

stud

ents

who

hav

e ca

used

di

srup

tion

s, y

et s

omet

imes

he

or s

he a

ddre

sses

the

en

tire

cla

ss.

•St

uden

ts a

re n

ot w

ell-b

ehav

ed a

nd a

re o

ften

off

task

.•

Teac

her es

tabl

ishe

s fe

w rul

es for

lea

rnin

g an

d be

havi

or.

•Th

e te

ache

r us

es few

tec

hniq

ues

to m

aint

ain

appr

opriat

e st

uden

t be

havi

or.

•Th

e te

ache

r ca

nnot

dis

ting

uish

bet

wee

n in

cons

eque

ntia

l be

havi

or a

nd ina

ppro

pria

te

beha

vior

.•

Dis

rupt

ions

fre

quen

tly

inte

rrup

t in

stru

ctio

n.

envi

ronm

ent

The

clas

sroo

m•

wel

com

es a

ll m

embe

rs a

nd g

uest

s.

•is

org

aniz

ed a

nd u

nder

stan

dabl

e to

all

stud

ents

.•

supp

lies,

equ

ipm

ent, a

nd res

ourc

es a

re e

asily

and

re

adily

acc

essi

ble.

•di

spla

ys s

tude

nt w

ork

that

fre

quen

tly

chan

ges.

•is

arran

ged

to p

rom

ote

indi

vidu

al a

nd g

roup

le

arni

ng.

The

clas

sroo

m

•w

elco

mes

mos

t m

embe

rs a

nd g

uest

s.

•is

org

aniz

ed a

nd u

nder

stan

dabl

e to

mos

t st

uden

ts.

•su

pplie

s, e

quip

men

t, a

nd res

ourc

es a

re a

cces

sibl

e.•

disp

lays

stu

dent

wor

k.

•is

arran

ged

to p

rom

ote

indi

vidu

al a

nd g

roup

le

arni

ng.

The

clas

sroo

m

•is

som

ewha

t co

ld a

nd u

ninv

itin

g.

•is

not

wel

l or

gani

zed

and

unde

rsta

ndab

le to

stud

ents

.•

supp

lies,

equ

ipm

ent, a

nd res

ourc

es a

re d

ifficu

lt to

acce

ss.

•do

es n

ot d

ispl

ay s

tude

nt w

ork.

•is

not

arran

ged

to p

rom

ote

grou

p le

arni

ng.

Resp

ectful

cu

lture

•Te

ache

r-st

uden

t in

tera

ctio

ns d

emon

stra

te c

arin

g an

d re

spec

t fo

r on

e an

othe

r. •

Stud

ents

exh

ibit c

arin

g an

d re

spec

t fo

r on

e an

othe

r.•

Teac

her se

eks

out an

d is

rec

eptive

to

the

inte

rest

s an

d op

inio

ns o

f al

l st

uden

ts.

•Po

sitive

rel

atio

nshi

ps a

nd int

erde

pend

ence

ch

arac

terize

the

cla

ssro

om.

•Te

ache

r-st

uden

t in

tera

ctio

ns a

re g

ener

ally

frien

dly,

but m

ay refl

ect oc

casi

onal

inc

onsi

sten

cies

, fa

voritism

, or

dis

rega

rd for

stu

dent

s’ c

ultu

res.

•

Stud

ents

exh

ibit res

pect

for

the

tea

cher

and

are

ge

nera

lly p

olite

to e

ach

othe

r. •

Teac

her is

som

etim

es rec

eptive

to

the

inte

rest

s an

d op

inio

ns o

f st

uden

ts.

•Te

ache

r-st

uden

t in

tera

ctio

ns a

re s

omet

imes

au

thor

itar

ian,

neg

ativ

e, o

r in

appr

opriat

e.

•St

uden

ts e

xhib

it d

isre

spec

t fo

r th

e te

ache

r. •

Stud

ent in

tera

ctio

n is

cha

ract

eriz

ed b

y co

nflic

t,

sarc

asm

, or

put

-dow

ns.

•Te

ache

r is

not

rec

eptive

to

inte

rest

s an

d op

inio

ns o

f st

uden

ts.

The

Lear

ning

Env

ironm

ent


Evaluator/Self-Evaluation Report

p Announced p Unannounced

Evaluator__________________________________________________________ Administrator Master Mentor

Teacher Evaluated_____________________________________________________________________________________

Date _______________ Time ___________________ Subject ________________________________________________

School Name _____________________________________________________________________ Cycle 1 2 3 4 5 6

Designing and Planning instruction evaluatorScores

Self-evalScores

Reinforcement objective

Instructional Plans (IP)

Student Work (SW)

Assessment (AS)

the Learning environment

Expectations (ES)

Managing Student Behavior (MSB)

Environment (ENV)

Respectful Culture (RC)

instruction Refinement objective

Standards and Objectives (S&O)

Motivating Students (MOT)

Presenting Instructional Content (PIC)

Lesson Structure and Pacing (LS)

Activities and Materials (ACT)

Questioning (QU)

Academic Feedback (FEED)

Grouping Students (GRP)

Teacher Content Knowledge (TCK)

Teacher Knowledge of Students (TKS)

Thinking (TH)

Problem Solving (PS)

evaluator Signature______________________________________________________________ Date _______________

teacher Signature _______________________________________________________________ Date _______________


The TAP system requires a teacher career path component comprised of master teachers, mentor teachers, and career teachers. This career path distributes school and instructional leadership and creates different job expectations and responsibilities for different types of teachers. Master teachers have responsibilities and job expectations in addition to those of career teachers. The same is true for mentor teachers, but on a lesser scale than master teachers. In addition, there are certain responsibilities for career teachers in schools implementing TAP. For this reason, responsibilities performance standards were established for master, mentor, and career teachers to document areas and levels of effectiveness and provide benchmarks of performance. These aggregated responsibilities scores are included in the SKR portion of the TAP performance award.

To evaluate these responsibilities the following process is suggested:

Master teacherThe administrator and the teachers in the master teacher’s cluster group (career and mentor teachers) fill out the master teacher responsibilities survey at the end of the school year. Some questions on the master teacher survey are answered only by the administrator and mentor teachers. The results are averaged to produce a final responsibilities score.

Mentor teacherThe administrator, master teacher(s), and career teachers who work with the mentor teacher complete a responsibilities survey at the end of the school year. Some questions on the mentor teacher survey are answered only by the administrator and master teachers. The results are averaged to produce a final responsibilities score.

career teacherThe mentor and master teacher(s) complete the responsibilities survey at the end of the school year for each career teacher whom they support. The results are averaged to produce a final responsibilities score.

The responsibilities surveys for master, mentor, and career teachers are provided on the following pages.

Teacher Responsibilities


Teacher Responsibilities Survey: Master Teacher

note: career teachers are to respond to items #1-13. Mentor teachers and administrators who are completing this survey should respond to items #1-22.

Performance Standard exemplary (5) Proficient (3) Unsatisfactory (1)

Staf

f Dev

elop

men

t

1. The master teacher leads the design and delivery of research-based professional development activities for his or her cluster group.

Regularly Sometimes Rarely

2. The master teacher consistently presents new learning in cluster that is supported with field-tested evidence of increased student achievement.


3. The master teacher models new learning in cluster meetings and in classrooms throughout the year demonstrating how to effectively implement the skill developed in cluster meetings.


4. The master teacher is a resource, providing access to materials and research-based instructional methods to his or her cluster group members.


5. The master teacher works closely with cluster team members to plan instruction and assessments during cluster development time.


6. The master teacher guides and reviews the cluster members’ growth plans.


inst

ruct

iona

l Su

perv

isio

n

7. The master teacher provides specific evidence, feedback, and suggestions during coaching identifying areas of reinforcement and refinement.


8. The master teacher advances the career and mentor teacher’s knowledge of state and district content standards and the TAP Rubrics.



Teacher Responsibilities Survey: Master Teacher Continued


Men

toring

9. The master teacher observes and guides the mentor teacher’s professional relationships and responsibilities to career teachers.


10. The master teacher guides, supports, and monitors the growth plans of career and mentor teachers.


11. The master teacher identifies resources for career and mentor teachers that enhance instructional planning, assessment design, and classroom management.


12. The master teacher provides ongoing follow-up and support (e.g. demonstration lessons, team teaching, observations with feedback) to career and mentor teachers.


com

mun

ity

invo

lvem

ent

13. The master teacher actively supports school activities and events.


note: the remaining items, #14-22, are to be completed by mentor teachers and administrators only.

Scho

ol R

espo

nsib

ilitie

s

14. The master teacher works with other leadership team members in developing appropriate school and cluster plans to target student academic and teacher instructional needs.


15. The master teacher leads and supports the analysis of school and student achievement data to identify strengths and weaknesses and make suggestions for improvement.


16. The master teacher communicates and reflects the visions and decisions of the TAP Leadership Team. Regularly Sometimes Rarely

17. The master teacher assists the administrators in inducting new teachers into the TAP school environment and processes.



Teacher Responsibilities Survey: Master Teacher Continued


Gro

win

g an

d Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

ly

18. The master teacher develops and works on his/her Individual Growth Plan (IGP), which includes new learning based on school goals, self-assessment, and feedback from observations.


19. The master teacher includes activities on his/her IGP to enhance content knowledge or pedagogical skills in order to increase his/her proficiency.


Reflec

ting

on t

each

ing

20. The master teacher thoughtfully assesses the effectiveness of his/her instruction, as evidenced in cluster by the new learning modeled and the student work presented from his/her field tests.


21. The master teacher considers the varied strengths and weaknesses and personal/cultural differences of adult learners through communications and actions that promote effective teaching with all cluster members.


22. The master teacher plans, offers, and implements specific alternative actions to improve teaching.


comments (optional, and not part of the score):


Teacher Responsibilities Survey: Mentor Teacher

note: career teachers are to respond to only items #1-11. Master teachers and administrators who are completing this survey should respond to items #1-21.


Staf

f Dev

elop

men

t

1. The mentor teacher assists the design and delivery of professional development activities for his/her cluster group as needed. Regularly Sometimes Rarely

2. The mentor teacher provides follow-up (e.g. observations, team teaching, and/or demonstration lessons) that supports/models how to use the ideas and activities learned in cluster.


3. The mentor teacher is a resource, providing access to materials and research-based instructional methods to his/her cluster group and/or mentee. Regularly

Sometimes Rarely

4. The mentor teacher works closely with cluster team members to plan instruction and assessments during cluster development time. Regularly Sometimes Rarely

inst

ruct

iona

l Su

perv

isio

n 5. The mentor teacher advances the career teacher’s knowledge of state and district content standards and the TAP Rubrics. Regularly Sometimes Rarely

6. The mentor teacher’s feedback during coaching specifically defines the areas of reinforcement and refinement. Regularly Sometimes Rarely


Teacher Responsibilities Survey: Mentor Teacher Continued


Men

toring

7. The mentor teacher provides opportunities/support for the career teacher/mentee through team planning and team teaching.


8. The mentor teacher serves as a resource for curriculum, assessment, instructional, and classroom management strategies and resources.


9. The mentor teacher guides and coaches career teachers/mentees in the development of their growth plans. Regularly Sometimes Rarely

10. The mentor teacher observes and coaches mentees and/or career teachers to improve their instruction and align it with the TAP Rubrics.


com

mun

ity

invo

lvem

ent 11. The mentor teacher actively supports school activities

and events. Regularly Sometimes Rarely

note: the remaining items, #12-21, cannot be answered by career teachers. they are to be completed only by master teachers and administrators who work with the mentor teacher.

Scho

ol R

espo

nsib

ilitie

s

12. The mentor teacher participates and supports the analysis of school achievement data to isolate school strengths and weaknesses in order to make suggestions for improvement.


13. The mentor teacher accepts leadership responsibilities and/or assists peers in contributing to a safe and orderly school environment.


14. The mentor teacher participates in the setting of school and cluster goals. Regularly Sometimes Rarely


Teacher Responsibilities Survey: Mentor Teacher Continued


Scho

ol R

espo

nsib

ilitie

s co

nt.

15. The mentor teacher communicates and reflects the visions and decisions of the TAP Leadership Team. Regularly Sometimes Rarely

16. The mentor teacher supports the master teacher during development time in cluster meetings by providing individual support to career teachers.


Gro

win

g an

d Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

ly

17. The mentor teacher develops a yearly plan/growth plan for new learning based on analyses of school improvement plans and goals, self-assessment, and input from master teacher and principal observations.


18. The mentor teacher selects targeted content knowledge and pedagogical skills to enhance and improve his/her knowledge.


Reflec

ting

on t

each

ing

19. The mentor teacher makes thoughtful and accurate assessments of his/her lessons’ effectiveness and the extent to which they achieved their goals.


20. The mentor teacher considers strengths and weaknesses, as well as personal and cultural differences, of adult learners as evidenced in his/her communications and actions that promote effective teaching with all cluster members.


21. The mentor teacher provides specific actions to improve his/her teaching. Regularly Sometimes Rarely



Teacher Responsibilities Survey: Career Teacher


Gro

win

g an

d Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

ly

1. The career teacher is prompt, prepared, and participates in cluster meetings, bringing student artifacts (student work) when requested.


2. The career teacher appropriately attempts to implement new learning in the classroom following presentation in cluster.


3. The career teacher develops and works on a yearly plan for new learning based on analyses of school improvement plans and new goals, self-assessment, and input from the master/mentor teacher and principal observations.


4. The career teacher selects specific activities, content knowledge, or pedagogical skills to enhance and improve his/her proficiency.


Reflec

ting

on t

each

ing

5. The career teacher makes thoughtful and accurate assessments of his/her lessons’ effectiveness as evidenced by the self-reflection after each observation.


6. The career teacher offers specific actions to improve his/her teaching. Regularly Sometimes Rarely

7. The career teacher accepts responsibilities contributing to school improvement. Regularly Sometimes Rarely

8. The career teacher utilizes student achievement data to address strengths and weaknesses of students and guide instructional decisions.




One of the core principles of TAP is that instructional effectiveness should be measured partly in terms of the contribution that the teacher and the school make to student achievement, using a method called value-added assessment. This represents a revolution in educational accountability. The system of public K-12 education in the United States has long measured the success of schools and teachers by the status of their students — the level of attainment students demonstrate by test scores at a fixed point in time. Such an approach is flawed because it assigns too much responsibility to the school and teacher for what students bring to the classroom at the beginning of the year, and not enough responsibility for what the students learn during the year. In contrast to status-based assessment, value-added assessment measures school and teacher performance in terms of student growth over time. This method adjusts for the substantial initial status differences seen between students.

The underlying concept has long been familiar to educators, although the labels and methods have changed in recent decades. If you give students a pretest on a topic before studying it in the classroom, and then give them a posttest after covering the material, you can interpret the difference between the two test scores as the value added to the students’ knowledge or skill on that topic. The differences between pretest and posttest scores are often called gains. This is a common assessment strategy, used by many teachers to measure how well students in their classrooms are learning.

Value-added assessment expands this concept to an entire year’s learning, and uses annual achievement test scores as the pretest and posttest. Multiple years of pretest scores for each student are used wherever possible in order to obtain a more precise picture of the student’s learning trajectory. Value-added assessment applies sophisticated statistical methods, rather than simply subtracting scores, in order to incorporate multiple years of test data. These methods allow including scores on tests with different scales, tests designed to different grade-level standards, or even tests on different subjects — all of which would make it inappropriate simply to subtract scores. In spite of its complexity, the essence of value-added assessment is simply to use gains or growth in student achievement to measure the instructional performance of teachers and schools.1

1. The terms “gains” and “growth” are used interchangeably here to refer to the student’s progress. The term “value-added” refers to a performance indicator that attributes student progress to the teacher and the school, using advanced statistical methods. Some writers make technical distinctions between “gains models,” “growth models,” and “value-added models,” but such distinctions are irrelevant to this discussion.

Value-Added Assessment


In recent decades, research has confirmed that having a high-quality teacher is the single most important school-related factor responsible for student learning. Structural school reforms (e.g., class size reduction) have demonstrated little or no overall impact on student learning relative to the impact of teachers. The same is true of curriculum-based and technology-based reforms. Of all school-related factors, the teacher makes by far the most difference to student learning. Several studies have shown that students assigned to ineffective teachers for multiple consecutive years are likely to score much worse at the end of that time — perhaps 50 percentile points worse — than similar students assigned to effective teachers for the same period. To emphasize the value and importance of the teacher and classroom instruction, TAP schools evaluate teachers, in part, by using value-added assessment as described in the previous section. Teachers are then compensated differently based on the gains in achievement they produce. A value-added score is calculated for the entire school, as well as for each teacher with enough qualifying students in a tested grade and subject. The teacher’s individual score is called the “classroom-level value-added.” It is the average gain of all the students assigned to a teacher. In most elementary grades, this represents a classroom of students, but in departmentalized grades, it represents the classes assigned to a teacher across all periods of the school day.

To receive a classroom-level value-added score, a teacher must teach in a tested grade and subject and must have at least 10 students with linked2 prior and current year testing data. Because of the need for prior year data, value-added scores cannot be calculated for the first grade in which testing takes place. For example, if tests are administered in grades 3 through 8, value-added assessment scores can only be calculated for teachers in grades 4 through 8.

Teachers whose students make a full year’s academic growth compared to their expected performance for the year based on previous tests as well as comparison to similar students receive a score of “3.”3 Teachers whose students make more than one year of academic growth receive a score of “4,” and teachers whose students make significantly more than one year of academic growth receive a score of “5.” Similarly, teachers whose students make less than an expected year of academic growth receive a score of “2,” and those whose students make significantly less than a year of growth receive a score of “1.”

2. In order to have “linked” testing data, each student must have test scores from previous years that can be identified with that specific student and that can also be identified with the specific teacher or teachers who were assigned to that student during each school year.3. The exact calculations vary between states depending on their assessment systems and their value-added statistics providers. The definition of an “average” teacher is based on the entire population of students and teachers for whom linkable data is provided on the same assessment in the same year. It is adjusted through the value-added method so that teachers are essentially being compared to other teachers with similar students. The average growth of those students in one year is used as the baseline for one year of growth unless the state sets different benchmarks. The definition of “somewhat” and “much” better or worse than average is based on standard errors or standard deviations, so that a score of “1” or “5” is always statistically significantly different from a score of “3.”

Classroom-Level Value-Added Assessment


School-wide achievement growth is important in the TAP system for compensating teachers for two critical reasons. First, not all teachers have enough students in tested grades and subjects with linkable prior test data to calculate individual classroom results. These teachers receive compensation based on the school-wide value-added assessment score. Second, theory and research indicate that school-wide performance awards create conditions favorable to professional collaboration, staff collegiality, and alignment of organizational resources for instructional improvement. All of the teachers in the school share in the responsibility and the credit for the school-wide value-added score.

The school-wide score is a composite of all the tested grades and subjects in the school. As with the classroom value-added score, each student included in the calculation must have at least two consecutive years of linkable test results, so the first grade in which tests are administered cannot be included in the score. A school that achieves a year of academic growth as compared to other schools with similar students receives a score of “3.”4 A school that achieves somewhat better than a year of growth receives a score of “4,” and one that achieves much better than a year of growth receives a score of “5.” Similarly, a school that achieves somewhat less than a year of growth receives a score of “2,” and one that achieves much less than a year of growth receives a score of “1.”

For more information on value-added assessment, see the Appendix: Value-Added FAQs.

4. It is important to note that the school score is not merely the average of the classroom scores. Teachers are compared to other teachers, and schools are compared to other schools. As with classroom scores, the exact calculations vary between states, depending on their assessment systems and their value-added statistics providers. The definition of an “average” school is based on the entire population of students and schools for whom linkable data is provided on the same assessment in the same year. It is adjusted through the value-added method so that schools are essentially being compared to other schools with similar students. The average growth of those students in one year is used as the baseline for one year of growth unless the state sets different benchmarks. The definition of “somewhat” and “much” better or worse than average is based on standard errors or standard deviations, so that a score of “1” or “5” is always statistically significantly different from a score of “3.”

School-Wide Value-Added Assessment


3

sectio

nTAP Compensation System


TAP Compensation Model

We recommend allocating a minimum of $2,000 per teacher to establish the award fund (Note: Many schools base their award fund on $2,500-$3,000 per teacher, which is recommended by NIET ). The award fund is divided into six award pools using a ratio of the career path level (e.g., career teachers with student achievement data, career teachers without student achievement data, mentor teachers with student achievement data, mentor teachers without student achievement data, master teachers with student achievement data, master teachers without student achievement data) to the total number of teachers eligible for an award.

Achievement Award Weights

For the career teacher with student achievement data, the award pool monies will be allocated as follows:

» 50% Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities» 30% Classroom achievement gains» 20% School achievement gains

For the career teacher without student achievement data, the award pool monies will be allocated as follows:

» 50% Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities» 50% School achievement gains

For the mentor teacher with student achievement data, the award pool monies will be allocated as follows:

» 50% Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities» 30% Classroom achievement gains» 20% School achievement gains

For the mentor teacher without student achievement data, the award pool monies will be allocated as follows:


For the master teacher with student achievement data, the award pool monies will be allocated as follows:

» 50% Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities» 30% Classroom achievement gains » 20% School achievement gains

For the master teacher without student achievement data, the award pool monies will be allocated as follows:



Teacher Compensation Formulas

The following section uses a hypothetical school to illustrate how teacher compensation formulas are computed in a TAP school. In this school, $3,000 is allotted as the amount per teacher to determine the total award fund. The hypothetical school has 18 teachers, which makes a total award fund of $54,000 ($3,000 × 18). The school is comprised of the following six pools of teachers:

» 3 career teachers with student achievement data» 6 career teachers without student achievement data» 1 mentor teacher with student achievement data» 4 mentor teachers without achievement data» 2 master teachers with student achievement data» 2 master teachers without student achievement data

The example below will demonstrate in detail how bonuses would be calculated for the teachers in the first category above — the 3 career teachers with student achievement data. However, it is important to note that the bonuses for the other categories of teachers would be calculated using the same technique. The only difference between calculating bonuses for career teachers and master and mentor teachers is that master and mentor teachers have a higher minimum SKR score to be eligible for a bonus. The mentor teachers must earn a “3.5” and master teachers a “4.0,” while the minimum requirement for career teachers is “2.5.”

As a reminder, for the career teacher with student achievement data, the award pool monies are allocated as follows:

» 50% Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities (SKR) » 30% Classroom achievement gains» 20% School achievement gains

In the hypothetical school, $9,000 (3 teachers × $3,000) is allocated to the career teacher with achievement data pool. The chart below illustrates the compensation pool for the career teachers used in the example:

The following sections outline the steps for calculating the SKR, classroom achievement gains, and school achievement gains portions of the bonus.

calculations for Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities (SKR) Portion of the Bonus For career, mentor, and master teachers, 50 percent of the teachers’ bonus award allocation depends on their Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities (SKR) score. For each teacher, a final SKR score is averaged from all teacher evaluation scores from that year. The monetary value of the SKR portion of a teachers’ payout is based on weighting that is determined by fixed pay ratios

Tab

le

1

example compensation Pool for 3 career teachers With Student Achievement and $3,000 Allocated Per teacher

total Award Pool SKR (50% of pool) classroom Value- Added (30% of pool)

School-Wide Value- Added (20% of pool)

individual $3,000 50% x $3,000 = $1,500 30% x $3,000 = $900 20% x $3,000 = $600

total 3 teachers x $3,000 = $9,000 50% x $9,000 = $4,500 30% x $9,000 = $2,700 20% x $9,000 = $1,800


(listed below in Table 2, column C). These pay ratios correspond to the teachers’ final SKR score. Teachers must receive a minimum SKR score to be eligible to receive a bonus (for career teachers, the minimum SKR score is “2.5”). If career teachers earn higher scores than “2.5,” their pay ratio increases correspondingly. For example, in Table 2, column A represents teachers’ SKR scores. For a score of “5,” the teacher earns a pay ratio of “7;” for a score of “4.5,” the teacher earns a pay ratio of “6,” and so on (See Table 2, column C for the complete list of ratios). Therefore, a teacher earning a score of “5” would earn seven times more than a teacher earning a score of “2.5.” Next, the number of teachers who received each score was multiplied by the pay ratio (See Table 2, column B for the complete list of teachers attaining specific scores). Column D of the table below represents the product of the number of teachers attaining a specific score (column B) and the pay ratio (column C).

In the example, $1,500 (50 percent of the career teachers’ award allocation of $3,000) is designated for the SKR category. Therefore, the total SKR pool for the 3 career teachers with student achievement data is $4,500 (3 teachers × $1,500). The $4,500 is then divided by the sum of the number of teachers attaining each score multiplied by the pay ratios for each score (e.g. $4,500/15 in the example in column D of Table 2). The resulting value is the award amount per teacher at a pay ratio of 1 (e.g. in this example it is $300). Therefore, the award amount per teacher in this example for the SKR portion of the bonus is the teacher’s pay ratio (as determined by their SKR score) multiplied by $300.

Therefore, the table below illustrates that the teacher scoring a “3” would receive $600 ($300 × 2), the teacher earning a “4.5” would receive $1,800 (300 × 6), and the teacher earning a “5” would receive $2,100 (300 × 7).

Tab

le

2

career teacher Skills, Knowledge, and Responsibilities (SKR) Underlying Pay computations

A B c D

Skills, Knowledge, & Responsibilities Score

number of teachers Attaining Score

Pay Ratio Pay Ratio Multiplied by number of teachers Attaining Score

12

2.53

3.54

4.55

00010011

00123567

00020067

totals 15

total Award Pool Designated for SKR $4,500

Sum (Pay Ratio x number of teachers Attaining Score) 15

Award Amount at Pay Ratio = 1 ($4,500/15) $300


calculations for classroom Achievement Portion of the BonusIn the example, $900 (30 percent of the career teachers’ award allocation of $3,000) was designated for classroom achievement. Like SKR scores, each teacher’s classroom achievement score (Table 3, column A) is assigned a pay ratio that determines how the score is weighted (for a list of the fixed pay ratios for classroom achievement, see Table 3, column C). Consequently, a score of “5” earns a pay ratio of “10,” a score of “4” equals a pay ratio of “6,” and a score of “3” is a pay ratio of “1.” Therefore, a teacher earning a score of “5” would earn ten times more money than a teacher earning a score of “3.” Next, the number of teachers who received each score is multiplied by the pay ratio (column D). Following the same metrics as Table 2, the award amount is then divided by the sum of all teachers’ pay ratios multiplied by the number of teachers attaining the score (e.g., $2,700/17). The result is the award amount per teacher at a pay ratio of 1 (e.g., $158.82). The award amount per teacher is the teacher’s pay ratio multiplied by $158.82.

The table below shows that in the hypothetical school, the teachers earning a value-added score of “3” would each receive $158.82 ($158.82 × 1) for the classroom achievement portion of their bonus award; the teachers earning a value-added score of “4” would each receive $952.94 ($158.82 × 6); while the teachers scoring a “5” would receive $1,588.24 ($158.82 × 10).

calculations for School-Wide Achievement Portion of the BonusFor career, mentor, and master teachers with student achievement data, 20 percent of the teachers’ bonus award allocation depends on the school-wide value-added score. As shown in table 4 on the following page, if the school achieves level “5” performance, 100 percent of the school-wide portion of the award fund is equally distributed to teachers. If the school achieves level “4” performance, 75 percent of the fund allocated for the school award is distributed to teachers. If the school achieves level “3” performance, 50 percent of the school award amount is distributed. Finally, in schools that score at levels “2” or below, none of the school-wide funds are distributed to teachers. In schools that earn less than a score of “5,” the undistributed funds from the school-wide award are at the discretion of the fiscal authority.

Tab

le

3

career teacher classroom Achievement Underlying Pay computations

A B c D

classroom Achievement Score

number of teachers Attaining Score

Pay Ratio for Attaining Score

Pay Ratio Multiplied by number of teachers Attaining Score

12345

00111

001610

001610

totals 17

total individual Award Pool Designated for Student– Level Achievement

$2,700

Sum (Pay Ratio x number of teachers Attaining Score) 17

Award Amount at Pay Ratio = 1 ($2,700/17) $158.82


In the hypothetical school, career, mentor, and master teachers in the categories with individual classroom gain would each receive $600 ($3,000 × 20%) with a school-wide gain score of “5,” which is 100 percent of the school-wide portion of the award fund. With a school-wide gain score of “4” each teacher would receive $450 (75% of the award fund) and with a school-wide gain score of “3” each teacher would receive $300 (50% of the award fund). If the school received a school-wide gain score of “2” or below, none of the school-wide funds would be distributed to teachers.

In the hypothetical school, career, mentor, and master teachers in the categories without individual classroom gain would each receive $1,500 ($3,000 × 50%) with a school-wide gain score of “5,” which is 100 percent of the school-wide portion of the award fund. With a school-wide gain score of “4” each teacher would receive $1,125 (75% of the award fund) and with a school-wide gain score of “3” each teacher would receive $750 (50% of the award fund). If the school received a school-wide gain score of “2” or below, none of the school-wide funds would be distributed to teachers.

The payout spreadsheet on the next page provides a sample of the calculations used to determine how the awards would be distributed to all of the 18 teachers in the hypothetical school.

Tab

le

4

School-Wide Achievement Underlying Pay computations

School-Wide Value-Added Score Percent of Award Fund

1 0%

2 0%

3 50%

4 75%

5 100%


Care

er Pa

th

Awar

dPr

opor

tion*

Awar

dPr

opor

tion:

SK

R

SKR

Scor

e

Awar

dPr

opor

tion:

St

uden

t Ac

hiev

emen

t

Stud

ent

Achi

evem

ent

Scor

e

SKR

Pay

Stud

ent

Achi

evem

ent

Pay

Scho

ol Aw

ard

Tota

l Awa

rd

Career with Achiev. Award Proportion SKR SKR Score Student Achiev. Student Achiev. Score SKR Pay Student Achiev. Pay Score of 5 0.17 0.50 0.30 0.20

Teacher’s Name $9,000.00 $4,500.00 $2,700.00 $1,800.00

Teacher 1 5 5 $2,100.00 $1,588.24 $600.00 $4,288.24

Teacher 2 4.5 4 $1,800.00 $952.94 $600.00 $3,352.94

Teacher 3 3 3 $600.00 $158.82 $600.00 $1,358.82

Master with Achiev. Award Proportion SKR SKR Score Student Achiev. Student Achiev. Score SKR Pay Student Achiev. Pay Score of 5 0.11 0.50 0.30 0.20

Teacher's Name $6,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,800.00 $1,200.00

Teacher 4 5 2 $1,500.00 $0.00 $600.00 $2,100.00

Teacher 5 5 4 $1,500.00 $1,800.00 $600.00 $3,900.00

Mentor with Achiev. Award Proportion SKR SKR Score Student Achiev. Student Achiev. Score SKR Pay Student Achiev. Pay Score of 5 0.06 0.50 0.30 0.20

Teacher's Name $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $900.00 $600.00

Teacher 6 4 4 $1,500.00 $900.00 $600.00 $3,000.00

Career without Achiev. Award Proportion SKR SKR Score SKR Pay Score of 5 0.33 0.50 0.50

Teacher's Name $18,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00

Teacher 7 2.5 $346.15 $1,500.00 $1,846.15

Teacher 8 4.5 $2,076.92 $1,500.00 $3,576.92

Teacher 9 3 $692.31 $1,500.00 $2,192.31

Teacher 10 4 $1,730.77 $1,500.00 $3,230.77

Teacher 11 4 $1,730.77 $1,500.00 $3,230.77

Teacher 12 5 $2,423.08 $1,500.00 $3,923.08

Master without Achiev. Award Proportion SKR SKR Score SKR Pay Score of 5 0.11 0.50 0.50

Teacher's Name $6,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00

Teacher 13 4 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,500.00

Teacher 14 4.5 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,500.00

Mentor without Achiev. Award Proportion SKR SKR Score SKR Pay Score of 5 0.22 0.50 0.5

Teacher's Name $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00

Teacher 15 5 $2,400.00 $1,500.00 $3,900.00

Teacher 16 4.5 $1,800.00 $1,500.00 $3,300.00

Teacher 17 4 $1,200.00 $1,500.00 $2,700.00

Teacher 18 3.5 $600.00 $1,500.00 $2,100.00

Expenditure

Award Pool based on $3,000 × 18 (number of teachers) = $54,000.00 $54,000.00

Number Position Required SKR Scores

3 Career with Achiev. Master 4

1 Mentor with Achiev. Mentor 3.5

2 Master with Achiev. Career 2.5

6 Career without Achiev.

4 Mentor without Achiev. Required Value-Added Scores

2 Master without Achiev. Score of 3 or more

18 Total

Sample Compensation Model

* Note: The “Award Proportion” is determined by the number of teachers in the category divided by the total number of teachers in the compensation model. For example: 3 career teachers divided by 18 total number of teachers, or 3/18, = .17


Principal Compensation Formulas

Many schools that have adopted the TAP system have decided to include their administrators in the performance award fund. In developing possible compensation structures for principals, it is important to keep in mind the key principles that guided the development of TAP’s performance-based compensation for teachers. They are:

• The system should balance the payout percentages between student achievement gains and performance.• The performance portion may contain a score for how the principals carry out their responsibilities with TAP or other instructional supervision duties.• The award should be dependent upon the individual’s performance, as well as the school’s performance as applicable.

Below are brief descriptions of three models that current TAP schools have adopted for principal compensation:

Model 1: 50%-30%-20% This model replicates the payout percentages for teachers.

• 50%: School-wide value-added scores. The administrator receives: o The entire 50% if the school scores a “5” on value-addedo Three-fourths of the 50% if the school scores a “4”o Half of the 50% if the school scores a “3”o None of the 50% for scores of “1” or “2”

• 30%: Based on principal effectiveness as applicable • 20%: Based on the overall TAP School Review5 score

Model 2: 100% Based on Value-Added This model pays the principal based solely on the school-wide value-added score. The

administrator receives:o The entire amount if the school scores a “5” on value-addedo Three-fourths of the amount if the school scores a “4”o Half of the amount if the school scores a “3”o None of the amount for scores of “1” or “2”

Model 3: hybridVarious TAP schools have adopted their own performance-based compensation system for administrators that include some or all of the elements listed below:• Value-added scores• AYP designation• TAP School Review results• Principal evaluation scores on district/state assessment• Other indicators deemed important by the state and/or district

5. TAP School Reviews are conducted at school sites by NIET representatives or designees, and are designed to evaluate how fully and effectively each school is implementing the TAP elements.


References

Ballou, D., Sanders, W., & Wright, P. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 37.

Braun, H.I. (2005). Using Student Progress to Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.

Career in Teaching Governing Panel (1999). Teacher Evaluation Guide: Process for the Supervision and Evaluation of District Personnel Teachers. Rochester, New York: Rochester City School District.

Connecticut State Department of Education (2000). Beginning Educator Support and Training Program: Elementary Education. Connecticut: Connecticut State Board of Education.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Figlio, D.N., and Kenny, L.W. (2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5-6), 901-914.

Goe, L. (2008). Key Issue: Using Value-Added Models to Identify and Support Highly Effective Teachers. Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Goldschmidt, P., Roschewski, P., Choi, K., et al. (2005) Policymakers’ Guide to Growth Models for School Accountability: How Do Accountability Models Differ? Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Gordon, R., Kane, T.J., & Staiger, D.O. (2006). Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2004). The effect of school accountability systems on the level and distribution of student achievement. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2-3), 406-415.

Hanushek, E.A., and Rivkin, S.G. (2006). Teacher quality. In Hanushek, E.A., and Welch, F. (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Education. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Hanushek, E.A., and Rivkin, S.G. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. The Future of Children, 17(1), 69-86.

Haycock, K. (1998). Good Teaching Matters: How Well-Qualified Teachers Can Close the Gap. Washington, D.C.: Education Trust.

Heneman III, H.G., Milanowski, A., Kimball, S.M., & Odden, A. (2006). Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation as a Foundation for Knowledge-and Skill-Based Pay (RB-45). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Jordan, H., Mendro, R., and Weerasinghe, D. (1997). Teacher Effects on Longitudinal Student Achievement. Dallas, Texas: Dallas Independent School District.

Kane, T.J., Staiger, D. (2008). Estimating Teacher Impacts on Student Achievement: An Experimental Evaluation (NBER Working Paper No. w14607). Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Kellor, E.M. (2005). Catching up with the Vaughn express: six years of standards-based teacher evaluation and performance pay. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(7).

Koppich, J.E. (2005). All teachers are not the same: a multiple approach to teacher compensation. Education Next, 5(1), 13-15.

Lissitz, R.W. (ed.) (2005). Value Added Models in Education. Maple Grove, Minnesota: JAM Press.

Lissitz, R.W. (ed.) (2006). Longitudinal and Value Added Models of Student Performance. Maple Grove, Minnesota: JAM Press.


Marzano, R. J. (2003). What Works in School: Translating Research into Action. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McCaffrey, D.F., Lockwood, J.R., Koretz, D., Louis, T.A., & Hamilton, L.S. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 67-102.

Milanowski, A., Odden, A., & Youngs, P. (1998). Teacher knowledge and skill assessments and teacher compensation: An overview of the measurement and linkage issues. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(2), 83-101.

Moir, E. (1998). A Developmental Continuum of Teacher Abilities. Santa Cruz, California: New Teacher Center, University of California at Santa Cruz.

Newman, F.M., Bryk, A., & Nagaoka, J.K. (2001). Authentic Intellectual Work and Standardized Tests: Conflict or Coexistance? Consortium on Chicago School Reform.

O’Connell, R. (1997). Teachers Performance Pay Plan. Douglas County, Colorado: Douglas County School District.

Odden, A. (2001). Rewarding excellence. Education Next, 1, 16-21.

Perkins, D. N., Goodrich., H., Tishman, S. & Owen, J. (1993). Thinking Connections: Learning to Think and Thinking to Learn. Menlo Park, California: Addison Wesley.

Rivkin, E.A., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2001). Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement. Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Rowley, J.B. (1999). High Performance Mentoring: Facilitators Guide. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Sanders, W.L. and Horn, S.P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS) database: implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.

Schacter, J. and Thum, Y.M. (2004). Paying for high- and low-quality teachers. Economics in Education Review, 23, 411-430.

Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Principles of teaching for successful intelligence. Educational Psychologist, 33, 65-72.

Stronge, J.H., Gareis, C.R., & Little, C.A. (2006). Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality: Attracting, Developing, and Retaining the Best Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tekwe, C.D., Carter, R.L., Ma, C., Algina, J., Lucas, M.E., Roth, J., Ariet, M., Fisher, T., & Resnick, M. (2004). An empirical comparison of statistical models for value-added assessment of school performance. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 11-36.

Thum, Y.M. (2003). Measuring progress toward a goal: estimating teacher productivity using a multivariate, multilevel value-added model. Sociological Methods & Research, 32, 208-252.

Tucker, Pamela D., & Stronge, James H. (2005). Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Curriculum Supervision and Development.

Walberg, H. J. (2003). Raising Learning Productivity through Teacher Education, Recruitment, Selection and Retention. Paper presented April 26 at the Milken National Education Conference, Century City, California.

Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: the link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12), 1–31.

White, B. (2004). The Relationship Between Teacher Evaluation Scores and Student Achievement: Evidence from Coventry, RI. (CPRE-UW Working Paper Series TC-04-04). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Assocication, San Diego, CA. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center Education Research, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.


Appendix: Value-Added FAQs

1. What is value-added analysis?Value-added analysis is a method for measuring the contribution of a teacher or school to gains in student achievement. The method uses individual student growth data linked from year to year, rather than cross-school or cohort average scores. It applies statistical methods to (a) measure the academic gain or growth of each student over a period of time, and (b) attribute that gain or growth to the specific school and teacher(s) responsible for educating each student during that time.

2. how is value-added analysis different from traditional attainment measures?Many accountability systems measure school and teacher performance in terms of student attainment at a certain point in time, rather than student growth over time. Such attainment measures do not account for the many differences that characterize individual students and influence their achievement test results (e.g., socioeconomic status, parent level of education, etc.). As a result, attainment measures tend to attribute those student differences to the teacher and the school, when in fact those differences are not due to the teacher and school. In an accountability system based on attainment, this gives the advantage to teachers and schools that serve the most advantaged students and creates an incentive to avoid teaching disadvantaged and low-achieving students. In contrast, value-added measures control for each student’s previous achievement results, which — as it turns out — controls for the relevant differences between students. By adjusting for what each student brings to the classroom on day one of the school year, value-added measures identify the new contribution of the teacher and the school to the student’s learning during the school year.

3. Does value-added assessment take into account student family income, race, ethnicity, and other socioeconomic factors?Yes, either directly or indirectly. Some models include these factors directly. However, research has shown that the student’s pattern of previous test scores contains enough information about the influence of these factors on current test scores that it is not necessary to include them as distinct factors. By controlling for previous test scores, these items are indirectly but effectively accounted for.

4. What are the requirements for a school, district, or state to use value-added assessment?A. There must be individual student test data that can be linked from year to year, and

linked from the student to the teacher(s) assigned to that student.B. The test data must be based on an appropriate assessment that is related to learning

standards and general enough to measure student achievement across a wide range of levels. C. For the best analysis, tests must be given at least annually, preferably near the end of

the school year (although some adjustments can be made for mid-year testing).D. For the best analysis, students should have at least three previous test scores to

compare with current test results. These may be from different subject tests in one previous year, but ideally will include same-subject tests in at least two previous years.

E. A teacher needs at least 10 students, each of whom has at least three previous test scores (either different tests from one previous year, the same test from three previous years, or some combination), and each of whom has been in the teacher’s classroom for a sufficiently large fraction of the school year, in order to calculate a teacher value-added result.


5. What does the tAP 1-5 value-added (VA) scale represent?In all TAP states, the scale is interpreted as follows:

VA 1= Far below average in effectiveness, with students gaining much less than a year’s growth.VA 2= Below average in effectiveness, with students gaining less than a year’s growth.VA 3= About average in effectiveness, with students gaining approximately a year’s growth.VA 4= Above average in effectiveness, with students gaining more than a year’s growth.VA 5= Far above average in effectiveness, with students gaining much more than a year’s growth.

6. in statistical terms, what does the tAP 1-5 value-added (VA) scale represent?In most TAP states, the value-added scale represents how widely distributed the value-added results are, with an adjustment for the size of the classroom and therefore the statistical significance of the results. Where this is done, the results can be interpreted as follows:

VA 1= Two or more standard errors below the mean, i.e., low and significant at the 95% confidence level.

VA 2= Between one and two standard errors below the mean, i.e., low and significant at the 68% confidence level.

VA 3= Less than one standard error away from the mean, i.e., not distinguishably different from average.

VA 4= Between one and two standard errors above the mean, i.e., high and significant at the 68% confidence level.

VA 5= Two or more standard errors above the mean, i.e., high and significant at the 95% confidence level.

A standard error is a measure of how strong an effect is, adjusted for sample size (or in teacher value-added assessment, class size). Thus, a value-added score of “5” means that the school’s or teacher’s measured student growth is far enough above expected growth that it is highly unlikely to be the result of a chance draw of students. Using standard errors as the basis for the TAP scale ensures that teachers with outstanding influence on student achievement are recognized as such.

7. What does it mean if a teacher’s value-added score seems at odds with the teacher’s SKR performance ratings?In many cases, there will be no divergence between these measures. TAP research shows that there is a positive correlation between SKR and value-added results. However, they measure different things. The SKR is a process-oriented measure, and the value-added score is an outcome-oriented measure. They often agree, but the fact that they don’t always agree is an important reason to include both of them in a multiple-measure incentive system like TAP. If there is an apparent discrepancy, the teacher and the TAP leadership team should look more closely at the following questions for insights into how the teacher’s performance can be enhanced in the future:

A. What can be learned from the detailed indicators making up the SKR, and the feedback provided after each observation? Are there specific areas of strength or weakness that shed light on the teacher’s value-added results?

B. What can be learned from the teacher’s value-added results disaggregated by student achievement level or subgroup? Does the teacher need to focus more on differentiated instruction for specific groups or levels of students?

C. Are there any non-instructional factors in the classroom’s experience during the year that would help to explain unexpected results? Were there disturbances that were beyond the control of the teacher? (The value-added portion of the TAP incentive should not be adjusted on the basis of such considerations, lest this become an incentive to make creative excuses

49National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. Do not duplicate without permission.

instead of focusing on instruction. One of the markers of a highly effective teacher is the ability to help students learn in spite of distractions. Nevertheless, this is useful diagnostic information to help the teacher and the TAP leadership team understand the teacher’s results and make improvements in the following year.)

8. What does it mean if a teacher’s value-added score seems at odds with the teacher’s percent proficient or other state accountability measure?In many cases, there will be no divergence between these measures. However, there are two scenarios where they might seem to be at odds. If the teacher’s students are low-achieving under the state accountability system, but the teacher has high value-added scores, this means that the teacher is effective at helping low-achieving students learn more rapidly than their peers. This represents an affirmation of the value that the teacher is contributing to the neediest students in the school system, even though the teacher might not get credit for it under a traditional accountability system. On the other hand, a teacher may have students who are high-achieving under the state accountability system, but may still receive low value-added scores as a teacher. This means that the teacher needs to improve in effectiveness in teaching those high-achieving students. Even high-achieving students need to learn more each year, and an effective teacher will help those students to gain more rapidly than their peers rather than allowing them to rest on their laurels.

© 2010, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2002 National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. All rights reserved.

TAP™: The System for Teacher and Student AdvancementAn Initiative of the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching

1250 Fourth Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 570-4860

www.tapsystem.org

Teacher Excellence Student Achievement Opportunities for All

Ver. 3/10

TAP Evaluation and Compensation Guide of the TAP Evaluation and Compensation Guide ... leadership...

Documents

Transcript of TAP Evaluation and Compensation Guide of the TAP Evaluation and Compensation Guide ... leadership...